From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hartsin Construction Corp. v. Millhauser

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Apr 23, 1930
136 Misc. 646 (N.Y. App. Term 1930)

Opinion

April 23, 1930.

Appeal from the Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Fifth District.

John J. Foley, for the appellant.

Benjamin A. Hartstein, for the respondent.


The premises being let solely for the carrying on of a business which was in violation of the zoning laws the lease was illegal. The provision under which the landlord, in the event of the issuance of an order against the existing use, undertook to make application to the board of standards and appeals for the modification of the zoning restrictions, the tenant agreeing to pay rent as long as she was permitted to remain in the premises, did not validate the instrument.

Judgment reversed, with thirty dollars costs, and complaint dismissed on the merits, with costs.

All concur; present, BIJUR, LYDON and FRANKENTHALER, JJ.


Summaries of

Hartsin Construction Corp. v. Millhauser

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Apr 23, 1930
136 Misc. 646 (N.Y. App. Term 1930)
Case details for

Hartsin Construction Corp. v. Millhauser

Case Details

Full title:HARTSIN CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, Respondent, v. BELVA L. MILLHAUSER…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department

Date published: Apr 23, 1930

Citations

136 Misc. 646 (N.Y. App. Term 1930)
241 N.Y.S. 428

Citing Cases

Turmon v. Fantasia Auto

Where the use of the demised premises is not in conformity with the zoning regulations it is not necessarily…

People v. Williams

Of course, a person who gains admittance to premises through intimidation or by deception, trick or artifice,…