Case ID: misc_187/html/0357-01.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

Samuel Coyne, Landlord, Appellant, v. Martin Silvers et al., Tenants, Respondents, and Saul Modell et al., Undertenants, Respondents.
    Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
    May 28, 1946.
    
      
      Arthur Richenthal and Irving M. Moss for appellant.
    
      Leon Finley and David S. Meyer for tenants, respondents.
   Memorandum

Per Curiam.

The fact that the landlord desires to engageoin a business similar to that conducted by the tenant does not deprive him of his right to secure possession of the premises where, as in the instant case, he establishes his good faith in seeking such possession for his immediate hnd personal use.

The final order should be reversed, with $30 costs, and final order directed for landlord as prayed for in petition, with costs.

Eder and Hecht, JJ., concur in memorandum Per Curiam; Hammer, J., dissents in the following memorandum: I dissent and vote for affirmance.

Order reversed, etc.