From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ehrenfeld v. Ward

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Jun 25, 1959
19 Misc. 2d 961 (N.Y. App. Term 1959)

Summary

In Ehrenfeld v. Ward (19 Misc.2d 961), the Appellate Term, First Department, held that proof of a code violation is evidence of an illegal use of premises, and unless tenant contested same, no issue was raised.

Summary of this case from Sandflow Realty Corp. v. Diaz

Opinion

June 25, 1959

Appeal from the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Manhattan, DARWIN W. TELESFORD, J.

Irving Novick for appellant.

No one appearing for respondent.


The landlord brought this proceeding to evict the tenants on the ground that the demised premises were being illegally used for single-room occupancy. It has been repeatedly held that in such a proceeding a case is not made out by merely showing the number of occupants in an apartment and the disposition of their sleeping quarters. There must be, in addition, proof that the physical layout of the apartment, particularly the means of egress, makes such occupancy illegal by virtue of section 248 Mult. Dwell. of the Multiple Dwelling Law and section D26-3.7 of the Administrative Code ( Shapiro v. Collins, 6 A.D.2d 1038). Here it is true that this proof was not supplied directly. However, there was proof of a violation filed against the building because of the multiple occupancy of this apartment. Such departmental action is presumptive evidence that the physical conditions of the apartment did not permit of legal occupancy by the number of people living there. The tenant did not contest this fact and introduced proof to rebut the contentions of the landlord as to the number of occupants. This proof was so weak and equivocal that it can be rightly said that it did not even raise an issue.

Accordingly, the final order in favor of the tenant dismissing landlord's petition should be reversed, with $30 costs, and final order directed in favor of the landlord as prayed for in the petition, with costs.

STEUER and AURELIO, JJ., concur; HOFSTADTER, J., dissents on authority of Shapiro v. Collins ( 6 A.D.2d 1038) and Realty Associates v. Bausch ( 17 Misc.2d 874 [App. Term, 61 M.C. Feb., 1959]).


Summaries of

Ehrenfeld v. Ward

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Jun 25, 1959
19 Misc. 2d 961 (N.Y. App. Term 1959)

In Ehrenfeld v. Ward (19 Misc.2d 961), the Appellate Term, First Department, held that proof of a code violation is evidence of an illegal use of premises, and unless tenant contested same, no issue was raised.

Summary of this case from Sandflow Realty Corp. v. Diaz
Case details for

Ehrenfeld v. Ward

Case Details

Full title:ROSA EHRENFELD, as Executrix of MARTIN EHRENFELD, Deceased, Appellant, v…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department

Date published: Jun 25, 1959

Citations

19 Misc. 2d 961 (N.Y. App. Term 1959)
188 N.Y.S.2d 599

Citing Cases

Sandflow Realty Corp. v. Diaz

The 1967 report of a violation, therefore, is prima facie evidence of the overcrowding. In Ehrenfeld v.…