From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

160 Realty Corp. v. 162 Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 10, 1952
280 App. Div. 762 (N.Y. App. Div. 1952)

Summary

In 160 Realty Corp. v. 162 Realty Corp. (113 N.Y.S.2d 618, affd. 280 App. Div. 762), the Appellate Division held that the landlord's violation of section 233 Real Prop. of the Real Property Law by commingling the security with his own money did not entitle the tenant to recover the money so deposited where it was still in possession and its lease had 18 years to run.

Summary of this case from 19 North Village Realty Corp. v. Kominos, Pappas

Opinion

June 10, 1952.

Present — Peck, P.J., Dore, Callahan and Bergan, JJ.


Order unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to respondents. No opinion.


Summaries of

160 Realty Corp. v. 162 Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 10, 1952
280 App. Div. 762 (N.Y. App. Div. 1952)

In 160 Realty Corp. v. 162 Realty Corp. (113 N.Y.S.2d 618, affd. 280 App. Div. 762), the Appellate Division held that the landlord's violation of section 233 Real Prop. of the Real Property Law by commingling the security with his own money did not entitle the tenant to recover the money so deposited where it was still in possession and its lease had 18 years to run.

Summary of this case from 19 North Village Realty Corp. v. Kominos, Pappas
Case details for

160 Realty Corp. v. 162 Realty Corp.

Case Details

Full title:160 REALTY CORP., Appellant, v. 162 REALTY CORP. et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Jun 10, 1952

Citations

280 App. Div. 762 (N.Y. App. Div. 1952)

Citing Cases

Purfield v. Kathrane

Where at the time of trial the deposit was intact and the person making the deposit was in possession, it has…

Weis Co. v. Offenberger

Aside from the foregoing deficiencies and insufficiencies noted, it may be well to state that not every…