Case ID: misc2d_53/html/0649-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

David Lidsky et al., Respondents, v. Robert Bragarnick, Appellant.
    Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
    March 30, 1967.
    
      Szold & Schapiro (Martin Szold of counsel), for appellant. Max Steinberg for respondents.
   Per Curiam.

In this nonpayment summary proceeding, covering decontrolled premises, landlords seek increased rent based on tenant’s continued occupancy after his lease expired, in accordance with a notice served. The effect of such notice and continued occupancy thereunder created a new agreement (St. James Apts. v. Finke, 181 N. Y. S. 356; 463 Realty Corp. v. Moloff, 62 N. Y. S. 2d 83; Kaufman v. Bartels, 182 Misc. 128). The jury waiver clause in the expired lease did not carry over into the new tenancy.

The order should be reversed, with $10 costs, and motion denied.

Concur — Markowitz, J. P., Hopstadter and Hecht, Jr., JJ.

Order reversed, etc.