Chan v. Adossa, 195 Misc. 2d 590 (2003)
- Citation
- Chan v. Adossa, 195 Misc. 2d 590 (2003)
- Parent Document
- Chan v. Adossa, 195 Misc. 2d 590 (2003)
- Jurisdiction
- New York (state)
- Effective Date
- 2003-02-25
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6346658/chan-v-adossa/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (27)
- Chan v. Adossa, 195 Misc. 2d 590 (2003)
- Chan v. Adossa, 195 Misc. 2d 590 (2003)
- Chan v. Adossa, 195 Misc. 2d 590 (2003)
- Chan v. Adossa, 195 Misc. 2d 590 (2003)
- Chan v. Adossa, 195 Misc. 2d 590 (2003)
- Chan v. Adossa, 195 Misc. 2d 590 (2003)
- Chan v. Adossa, 195 Misc. 2d 590 (2003)
- Chan v. Adossa, 195 Misc. 2d 590 (2003)
- Chan v. Adossa, 195 Misc. 2d 590 (2003)
- Chan v. Adossa, 195 Misc. 2d 590 (2003)
- Chan v. Adossa, 195 Misc. 2d 590 (2003)
- Chan v. Adossa, 195 Misc. 2d 590 (2003)
- Chan v. Adossa, 195 Misc. 2d 590 (2003)
- Chan v. Adossa, 195 Misc. 2d 590 (2003)
- Chan v. Adossa, 195 Misc. 2d 590 (2003)
- Chan v. Adossa, 195 Misc. 2d 590 (2003)
- Chan v. Adossa, 195 Misc. 2d 590 (2003)
- Chan v. Adossa, 195 Misc. 2d 590 (2003)
- Chan v. Adossa, 195 Misc. 2d 590 (2003)
- Chan v. Adossa, 195 Misc. 2d 590 (2003)
- Chan v. Adossa, 195 Misc. 2d 590 (2003)
- Chan v. Adossa, 195 Misc. 2d 590 (2003)
- Chan v. Adossa, 195 Misc. 2d 590 (2003)
- Chan v. Adossa, 195 Misc. 2d 590 (2003)
- Chan v. Adossa, 195 Misc. 2d 590 (2003)
- Chan v. Adossa, 195 Misc. 2d 590 (2003)
- Chan v. Adossa, 195 Misc. 2d 590 (2003)
Full Text
864 charsIn sum, the language and history of the Multiple Dwelling Law and Administrative Code provisions and of the court rule, and the legislative intent which underlies these provisions, leads us to conclude that these provisions were designed only to implement the rent sanction for the lack of a proper MDR statement and not to render such a statement a jurisdictional prerequisite to all RPAPL 711 proceedings. We recognize that our reasoning might well lead to the further conclusion that *595these provisions not only were not intended to add a jurisdictional prerequisite but also were not intended to add an element to the claim for possession in nonrent-based proceedings, only to the claim for rent and/or use and occupancy. In view of the contrary constraint possibly imposed by Mandel v Pitkowsky (supra), we leave consideration of this issue for another day.