
    Vito Guttilla and Salvatore Tantillo, Landlords, Appellants, v. Jacob Dorf, Tenant, Respondent. Vito Guttilla and Salvatore Tantillo, Landlords, Appellants, v. Ike Goodman, Tenant, Respondent.
    Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
    January
    Filed February, 1924.
    Landlord and tenant — summary proceedings — when final order in landlord’s favor in summary proceedings, instituted subsequent to chapter 948 of Laws of 1920, will be modified — Municipal Court Code, § 6, subd. 3, applied.
    A final order in favor of the landlords in a summary proceeding instituted in the city of New York since the enactment of chapter 948 of the Laws of 1920 will be modified by striking therefrom a stay of the issuance and execution of the warrant, so far as it exceeds the thirty days prescribed by section 6(3) of the Municipal Court Code, and as so modified said order will be affirmed.
    Appeal by landlords from a final order of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, borough of Manhattan, second district, rendered in favor of the landlords.
    
      Louis Levene, for appellants.
    
      Benjamin A. Hartstein, for respondents.
   Per Curiam.

While under chapter 137 of the Laws of 1920, applicable to cities of the first class, the court or justice awarding a final order in favor of the landlord in a summary proceeding could grant a discretionary stay of the issuance and execution of the warrant for a period not exceeding twelve months, when the legislature subsequently, in September, 1920, suspended summary proceedings against occupants of dwellings for holding over the term (except in four classes of cases) in a city of a population of 1,000,000 or more, or in a city or county adjoining such a city (Laws of 1920, chap. 942; Civ. Prac. Act, § 1410, subd. 1-a), the stay authorized by chapter 137 of the Laws of 1920 was expressly limited to cities of the first class having a population of 1,000,000 or less (Laws of 1920, chap. 948); so that in the city of New York a justice of the Municipal Court had no power thereafter to grant a stay in a summary proceeding for longer than thirty days upon the conditions prescribed in subdivision 3 of section 6 of the Municipal Court Code.

It follows that the final order must be modified by striking therefrom the stay in so far as it exceeded the statutory thirty days, and as so modified affirmed, with five dollars costs to appellant.

All concur; present, Bijur, Mullan and Lydon, JJ.

Ordered accordingly.  