Alleyne v. Townsley, 110 A.D.2d 674 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985). · Go Syfert
Search
Alleyne v. Townsley, 110 A.D.2d 674 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case · ( sitt , 241 ad3d at 1093; see also alleyne v townsley , 110 ad2d 674, 675 2d dept 1985.) the court of appeals has observed that at p. 675 ⚠ not in text
cited 2× by 1 distinct case · …the common-law principles governing the ejectment action are unchanged, unless explicitly modified by statute at p. 675 ✓
25 citation events (17 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Olympic Galleria, Co., Inc. v. Sitt (nyappdiv, 2025-09-11)
Treatment trajectory · 1987 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1987 2006 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Olympic Galleria, Co., Inc. v. Sitt (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2025 · confidence medium
Despite the advent of the various statutory remedies available to a landlord beset with a recalcitrant tenant, "[t]he common-law principles governing the ejectment action are unchanged, unless explicitly modified by statute" ( see Alleyne v Townsley , 110 AD2d 674, 675 [2d Dept 1985]), and no provision of RPAPL article 6, under which plaintiff asserts the ejectment cause of action, prescribes a notice period.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) 235 W. 107th St., LLC v. Martinez
N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. · 2024 · confidence medium
The Court observes that plaintiffs may pursue a common law cause of action for ejectment in this Court (see Alleyne v Townsley, 110 AD2d 674, 675 [2d Dept 1985] [finding that the “common-law action for ejectment still survives in New York”]). 150984/2023 235 WEST 107TH STREET, LLC ET AL vs.
cited Cited as authority (rule) 100 Metro. Ave. Realty Corp. v. Light RE LLC
N.Y. Sup. Kings · 2023 · confidence medium
NO. 159 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2024 after expiration of a fixed and definite term (Alleyne v Townsley, 110 AD2d 674 at 675 [2d Dept 1985]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) 26 Bowery LLC v. Yong (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Bankr. S.D.N.Y. · 2023 · confidence medium
Courts have recognized that while summary proceedings to regain possession of real property have grown increasingly common, “the common-law action for ejectment still survives in New York and is more properly referred to as an action to recover possession of real property.” Alleyne v. Townsley, 487 N.Y.S.2d 600, 600 (N.Y.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sheila Properties, Inc. v. A Real Good Plumber, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · confidence medium
“No statute abrogates the common-law rule that notice is unnecessary to maintain an ejectment action against a tenant who wrongfully holds over after expiration of a fixed and definite term” (Alleyne v Townsley, 110 AD2d 674, 675 [1985]; see 99 Commercial St. v Llewellyn, 240 AD2d 481, 483 [1997]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kosa v. Legg
N.Y. Sup. Ct. · 2006 · confidence medium
“The common-law principles governing the ejectment action are unchanged, unless explicitly modified by statute.” (Alleyne v Townsley, 110 AD2d 674, 675 [2d Dept 1985]; Aponte v Santiago, 165 Misc 2d 968 [Civ Ct, Bronx County 1995].) RPAPL article 6 did not add any notice requirements, but neither did it abolish those notices required under common law.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hsiu v. Trujillo
N.Y. Sup. Ct. · 2002 · confidence medium
It was stated in Alleyne v Townsley ( 110 AD2d 674, 675 [2d Dept 1985]) that, “No statute abrogates the common-law rule that notice is unnecessary to maintain an ejectment action against a tenant who wrongfully holds over after expiration of a fixed and definite term (see, 13 Carmody-Wait 2d, NY Prac § 89:118).” (Emphasis added.) Similarly, in one treatise it is reported that, “Notice to quit the premises is required when the tenancy is a month-to-month, a tenancy at will or at sufferance, or for an indefinite period.
discussed Cited "see" 2 Bowery Holding LLC v. Ng
Bankr. S.D.N.Y. · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
LLDP Realty, 989 N.Y.S.2d at 585 ; see Alleyne v. Townsley, 487 N.Y.S.2d 600, 600 (N.Y.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Gomez v. Gomez (2×)
Civ. Ct. NYC, Kings Cty. · 2026 · signal: see also · confidence medium
As observed in Sitt, "Despite the advent of the various statutory remedies available to a landlord beset with a recalcitrant tenant, "[t]he common-law principles governing the ejectment action are unchanged, unless explicitly modified by statute (emphasis added)." ( Sitt , 241 AD3d at 1093; see also Alleyne v Townsley , 110 AD2d 674, 675 [2d Dept 1985].) The Court of Appeals has observed that "a statute must be read and given effect as it is written by the Legislature, not as the court may think it should or would have been written if the Legislature had envisaged all the problems and complica…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Leroy Alleyne
v.
Fannie Townsley
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Apr 8, 1985.
110 A.D.2d 674
1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48571
Cited by 14 opinions  |  Published

The plaintiff landlords, Leroy and Isaline Alleyne, are the owners of a two-family dwelling located at 1538 President Street, Borough of Brooklyn, City of New York. The defendant, Fannie Townsley, rented the second-floor apartment on a[*675] monthly basis in July 1983. In or about September 1983 the Alleynes served Townsley with a 30-day notice terminating her tenancy as of October 31, 1983. Ms. Townsley failed to vacate the premises, and a holdover proceeding was instituted in Civil Court. Townsley raised as a defense that the premises were occupied by three families in violation of the certificate of occupancy. As a result, the Civil Court proceeding was thereafter withdrawn and the instant action for ejectment instituted. The Alleynes successfully moved for summary judgment and Townsley has appealed. We affirm.

Although resort to a summary proceeding to regain possession of real property has become the rule rather than the exception (RPAPL art 7; 2 Warren’s Weed, NY Real Property, Ejectment, § 1.01), the common-law action for ejectment still survives in New York and is more properly referred to as an action to recover possession of real property (RPAPL art 6). The common-law principles governing the ejectment action are unchanged, unless explicitly modified by statute. No statute abrogates the common-law rule that notice is unnecessary to maintain an ejectment action against a tenant who wrongfully holds over after expiration of a fixed and definite term (see, 13 CarmodyWait 2d, NY Prac § 89:118). While the 30-day notice served on the defendant in September 1983 was intended by the landlords to comply with the requirements of Real Property Law § 232-a, being a condition precedent to maintaining summary eviction proceedings under RPAPL article 7, we agree with Special Term that this notice served equally well to convert the defendant’s tenancy into one for a fixed and definite term. Indeed, the tenant concedes in her brief on appeal that “the notice terminated [her] tenancy as of October 31, 1983”. We need not pass upon the soundness of the rule announced in Haberman v Wager (73 Misc 2d 732) and its progeny, which holds that a 30-day notice is required by Real Property Law § 232-a for each summary proceeding, because, in any event, those cases are inapposite since the instant action seeks the common-law remedy of ejectment and is not a statutory summary eviction proceeding. Gibbons, J. P., Weinstein, Brown and Niehoff, JJ., concur.