J.D. Realty Associates v. Jorrin, 166 Misc. 2d 175 (1995)
- Citation
- J.D. Realty Associates v. Jorrin, 166 Misc. 2d 175 (1995)
- Parent Document
- J.D. Realty Associates v. Jorrin, 166 Misc. 2d 175 (1995)
- Jurisdiction
- New York (state)
- Effective Date
- 1995-09-12
Other Sections in This Document (22)
- J.D. Realty Associates v. Jorrin, 166 Misc. 2d 175 (1995)
- J.D. Realty Associates v. Jorrin, 166 Misc. 2d 175 (1995)
- J.D. Realty Associates v. Jorrin, 166 Misc. 2d 175 (1995)
- J.D. Realty Associates v. Jorrin, 166 Misc. 2d 175 (1995)
- J.D. Realty Associates v. Jorrin, 166 Misc. 2d 175 (1995)
- J.D. Realty Associates v. Jorrin, 166 Misc. 2d 175 (1995)
- J.D. Realty Associates v. Jorrin, 166 Misc. 2d 175 (1995)
- J.D. Realty Associates v. Jorrin, 166 Misc. 2d 175 (1995)
- J.D. Realty Associates v. Jorrin, 166 Misc. 2d 175 (1995)
- J.D. Realty Associates v. Jorrin, 166 Misc. 2d 175 (1995)
- J.D. Realty Associates v. Jorrin, 166 Misc. 2d 175 (1995)
- J.D. Realty Associates v. Jorrin, 166 Misc. 2d 175 (1995)
- J.D. Realty Associates v. Jorrin, 166 Misc. 2d 175 (1995)
- J.D. Realty Associates v. Jorrin, 166 Misc. 2d 175 (1995)
- J.D. Realty Associates v. Jorrin, 166 Misc. 2d 175 (1995)
- J.D. Realty Associates v. Jorrin, 166 Misc. 2d 175 (1995)
- J.D. Realty Associates v. Jorrin, 166 Misc. 2d 175 (1995)
- J.D. Realty Associates v. Jorrin, 166 Misc. 2d 175 (1995)
- J.D. Realty Associates v. Jorrin, 166 Misc. 2d 175 (1995)
- J.D. Realty Associates v. Jorrin, 166 Misc. 2d 175 (1995)
- J.D. Realty Associates v. Jorrin, 166 Misc. 2d 175 (1995)
- J.D. Realty Associates v. Jorrin, 166 Misc. 2d 175 (1995)
Full Text
814 charsPetitioner’s motions for leave to conduct discovery amount to a significant admission that petitioner does not now know if respondents have leases, how much they are obligated to pay each month as rent, or whether any amounts were paid to predecessors in interest between June 1989 and July 1993. The specific amounts claimed due since July 1993 in both the three-*179day notice and petition are apparently based on Department of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) and Bankruptcy Court records. Petitioner’s own papers support the view that, when petitioner served the three-day notice, it did not then have a good-faith belief as to the amount actually owed at least for the period prior to July 1993. Indeed, petitioner lacked, and still lacks, the data needed to form such a good-faith belief for that period.