Mainstay Coop. Section Two, Inc. v. Hroch, 105 A.D.2d 695 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1984). · Go Syfert
Search
Mainstay Coop. Section Two, Inc. v. Hroch, 105 A.D.2d 695 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1984). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
7 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: 50 Brompton Owners, Inc. v. Freeman, 2025 NY Slip Op 50481(U) (N.Y. App. Term. 2025)
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 695 cited at this page2 citing cases
  • 50 Brompton Owners, Inc. v. Freeman, 2025 NY Slip Op 50481(U) (N.Y. App. Term. 2025).unpublished
    Section Two v Hroch ( 105 AD2d 695, 695 [1984]), where the occupancy agreement limited occupancy to the "Member [of a federally insured co-operative housing corporation] and his immediate family," the Appellate Division, Second Department,…
  • Northridge Coop. Section III, Inc. v. Bonilla, 72 Misc. 3d 132(A) (N.Y. App. Term. 2021).unpublished
    Section Two v Hroch , 105 AD2d 695, 695 [2d Dept 1984]; see also Barbizon Owners Corp. v Chudick , 159 Misc 2d 1023, 1024-1026 [Civ Ct, Queens County 1994]; cf. Chiagkouris v 201 W. 16 Owners Corp. , 160 AD3d 469 , 469 [1st Dept 2018]; 445…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Mainstay Cooperative Section Two, Inc.
v.
George Hroch
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Nov 5, 1984.
Published opinion
105 A.D.2d 695
1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20802
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published

In a holdover proceeding, petitioner appeals (by permission) from an order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts, dated June 24,1983, which reversed a judgment of the Civil Court, Queens County (Harbater, J.), entered October 14, 1982, which had granted the petition, and, instead, dismissed the petition.

Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The occupancy agreement, executed in June, 1961, between petitioner, a federally insured cooperative housing corporation, and its “Member[s]”, respondents George Hroch and Carolyn Hroch, relating to their residence in a specified apartment, limited occupancy to the “Member * * * and his immediate family”. In 1975, their son, respondent Russell Hroch, upon his marriage, moved from the apartment, but returned in January, 1980, some years after his marriage was terminated, and remained there when his parents and his sister moved to Florida in July, 1980. In September, 1981, he married, and his new wife, respondent Donna Hroch, moved into the apartment with him.

Under the circumstances, the residence by Donna Hroch in the apartment in which her husband unquestionably had the right of possession did not constitute a violation of a substantial obligation of the occupancy agreement (see Real Property Law, § 235-f; 61 Jane St. Assoc. v Kroll, 102 AD2d 751; cf. McCorkle Co-op. Apts. v Gross, 54 AD2d 753, affd 43 NY2d 765). Niehoff, J. P., Boyers, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.