Cardosanto v. Cardosanto
| Decision Date | 24 October 1958 |
| Citation | 15 Misc.2d 1001,186 N.Y.S.2d 331 |
| Parties | Concetta CARDOSANTO, Owner-Appellant, v. Estelle Makaliunas CARDOSANTO, Occupant-Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
La Penna & Tuckman, New York City (Harry M. Krokow, New York City, of counsel) for appellant.
L. M. Kooperstein and Joseph Goldberg, New York City, for respondent.
Before PETTE, HART and BROWN, JJ.
Final order unanimously reversed upon the law and facts with $30 costs to landlord and final order directed for the landlord as prayed for in the petition, with appropriate costs in the court below. Issuance of warrant stayed to and including November 30, 1958.
This proceeding was properly brought under section 1411, subdivision 8 of the Civil Practice Act. Upon due notice of revocation of the license of the occupant, the landlord became entitled to possession of the premises.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brennecke v. Smith
...to squeeze it into the mould of certain cases recited in the briefs submitted, i. e., Tausik v. Tausik; Cheek v. Salkind; Cardosanto v. Cardosanto (infra). In Cheek v. Salkind, 28 Misc.2d 828, 214 N.Y.S.2d 83, the grantor of the husband of the respondent-wife succeeded in removing the wife ......
-
Murawski v. Melkun
...shared lawfully with her husband, as in the instant case for 14 years. It is in this context that the holding in Cardosanto v. Cardosanto, 15 Misc.2d 1001, 186 N.Y.S.2d 331, is distinguishable from the facts herein and accordingly held to be inapplicable. Further, whatever motivations the d......
-
Tausik v. Tausik
...with a legal right to possession--a summary proceeding (Cardosanto v. Cardosanto, 10 Misc.2d 302, 172 N.Y.S.2d 684, reversed 15 Misc.2d 1001, 186 N.Y.S.2d 331). Final order affirmed, with $25 Appeal from order dismissed. AURELIO and TILZER, JJ., concur. HOFSTADTER, Justice (dissenting). I d......
-
Tausik v. Tausik
...302, 172 N.Y.S.2d 684. This Court cannot agree with the rationale there stated. That determination was reversed on appeal, 15 Misc.2d 1001, 186 N.Y.S.2d 331. The Appellate Term specifically held that a proceeding to vacate a spouse after separation is properly brought under this section. Th......