People ex rel. Higgins v. Peranzo, 179 A.D.2d 871 (1992)

Citation: People ex rel. Higgins v. Peranzo, 179 A.D.2d 871 (1992)
Parent Document: People ex rel. Higgins v. Peranzo, 179 A.D.2d 871 (1992)
Jurisdiction: New York (state)
Effective Date: 1992-01-16
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6081255/people-ex-rel-higgins-v-peranzo/ ↗

Full Text

886 chars

Significantly, the majority acknowledges the possibility that respondents actually attempted to evict the tenants because of their own mistaken belief in the law. Illogically, the majority goes on to state that this fact must mean that the notice was served to retaliate against the tenants for complaining to governmental agencies. We cannot accept this conclusion. The issue of whether the notice was served as a result of mistaken belief in the law or in retaliation for the tenants’ complaints *876presents a clear conflict that must be resolved before liability can be imposed. The statute only prohibits the latter conduct, not the former. Accordingly, we believe that the issue of whether respondents violated Real Property Law § 233 (n) (1) (a) should be sent back for a factual hearing. --- 030concurrence by Weiss --- Weiss, J.,
concurs. Ordered that the order is modified, on

Other Sections in This Document (13)

Full Text