Newman v. Sherbar Development Co. — 47 A.D.2d 648

Majority

p. 648

Kenneth Newman et al., on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Appellants, v. Sherbar Development Co. et al., Respondents. Nat Chanelis, Doing Business as Sherbar Development Co., Respondent, v. Max Margolies, Appellant (And 12 other titles).

— In an action, .(by tenants of,"an apartment building inter aUa for ¿ declaratory judgment that a certain declaration of'effectiveness-,^'a plan of-co-operative, organization /of the-tmilling is" void) and several stímmáity'-proceedings, to. recover • possession' óf-real, property* (the proceedings werp transferred from the Civil Gdurtiof "the City ’of New York to'the Supreme Court, ¡Kings Coimty;,there- to. be tried /vvjih' the action); plaintiffs in the action and ■ respondents"in the proceedings ' appeal from a judgment of the Supreme- Court,' Kin'gs; County,' dated -May/29, 1974, (which,, áftér a. non jury trial, inter alia- deelared/hat '.the co-operative plan was propa-ly',declared effective on. August- 8;-" 1973. tod"'-‘tiriff pétitiónerf ; 'in the proceedings is entitled tó warrants.of eviction" judgment ;mp<ti§ecj,son1 the facts and in the exercise o.f this court’s discretion .in.tite interest of justice, ■-by adding thereto a provision staying defendahts1 ffom'proíé'éditig against ¡ ¿it - . who are plaintiffs in-the1'action.to.recover possession of .their (respective apért'- .. ments priori to. Júly'l, 1979;/and .further staying', the issuance (®fitoritots, ¡ñ . the. summary proceedings, until said daté,, all. .provided /hat .saidV pIaintiffs' -yand the respondents in-thé summary. proceedings; resp/eétivbly' pay the préséht: -rent of their' apartments as such nents-become-due/ .(As.so inodified, judgment (affirmed) without costs.. .Under" section-753 o"f; the ReáDProperty ActiohS tod' Proceedings Law ¡¡a stay of the.issuance of . a -/arraiit in a holdd-ty/summary:1 proceéding-may be allowed for a penod not to.etyéed six months? In the gránting " . of'equitable relief, the court may mold its relief io accord'- with the v exigencies of the case (cf. Matter <?/,Galewitz, 3.A D gd 280,.285,. áffd. S^N Y 2d 72l-; Wages v. Wages, 38 A D 2d 968 ), In-the light-of the prevailing .tight market for apartment" rentals; .we 'find the exigencies ■ of this - case, equitably iequire the, conditional stay granted by the modification herein of the judgment, HopkinS, Acting. P.. J,, Martuseelló, Brennan, (Benjamin and Shapiro; ,JJ,, -concur/. ■'

Cases cited

Wages v. Wages 38 A D 2d 968 N.Y. App. Div. 1972-03-20 p. 648