From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Seligmann v. Parcel One Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 21, 1991
170 A.D.2d 344 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

February 21, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Irma Vidal Santaella, J.).


In light of the predictable uncertainties inherent in removing plaintiff's housekeeper, who allegedly has lived in the 94-year-old plaintiff's apartment with her family for the past 25 years as a condition of her employment, in the event it is determined that their occupancy of the apartment constitutes an illegal sublet or assignment, it cannot be said that the ten day stay available to plaintiff in Housing Court pursuant to RPAPL 753 (4) would be sufficient and plaintiff's motion for a Yellowstone injunction should have been granted. In granting this relief, we take plaintiff's counsel at his word (on oral argument) that he will not seek a stay or dismissal of the summary proceeding on the basis of the pendency of this action.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Kupferman, JJ.


Summaries of

Seligmann v. Parcel One Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 21, 1991
170 A.D.2d 344 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Seligmann v. Parcel One Company

Case Details

Full title:GEORGES E. SELIGMANN, Appellant, v. PARCEL ONE COMPANY, Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Feb 21, 1991

Citations

170 A.D.2d 344 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Citing Cases

Wong v. Gouverneur Gardens Housing Corp.

We reject the motion court's conclusion that injunctive relief was appropriate because plaintiff could not…

Wisoff v. 170-176 W. 89™ St. Apartment Corp.

Yellowstone relief has been granted to residential tenants only in certain narrow circumstances, for instance…