CARDOSANTO v. CARDOSANTO


15 Misc.2d 1001 (1958)

Concetta Cardosanto, Appellant v. Estelle M. Cardosanto, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department.

October 24, 1958.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

La Penna & Tuckman (Harry M. Krokow of counsel), for appellant.

L. M. Kooperstein and Joseph Goldberg for respondent.

Concur — PETTE, HART and BROWN, JJ.


Per Curiam.

This proceeding was properly brought under subdivision 8 of section 1411 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.

The final order should be 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...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases