115-119 East 90th Street Corp. v. Weaver

New York Supreme Court

115-119 East 90th Street Corp. v. Weaver

6 Misc. 2d 979, 166 N.Y.S.2d 361, 1957 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3530

DecidedFebruary 8, 1957

StatusPublished

This text of 6 Misc. 2d 979 (115-119 East 90th Street Corp. v. Weaver) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

115-119 East 90th Street Corp. v. Weaver, 6 Misc. 2d 979, 166 N.Y.S.2d 361, 1957 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3530 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

Aron Steuer, J.

Petitioner, landlord, installed a new refrigerator at the tenant’s request. This refrigerator replaced a smaller one already installed in the apartment. Petitioner requested a rent increase of $3.50 a month. This represents an amortization of the entire cost of the new refrigerator. Respondent, Rent Administrator, allowed an increase of 50 cents per month, representing amortization of the difference in cost between the old and the new refrigerators. Petitioner protested.

The Rent Administrator is correct in his holding. The increase is sought pursuant to the statutory authority of section 33 of the State Rent and Eviction Regulations. The statute allows a rent increase where there has been a corresponding increase of space, service, furnishings or equipment. If the old refrigerator were replaced there would be no increase [980]*980for the replacement because that would be merely maintaining the existing equipment. The increase in rent is only justified to the extent that the replacement represents a larger or superior piece of equipment.

The motion is denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Aron Steuer, J.

Petitioner, landlord, installed a new refrigerator at the tenant’s request. This refrigerator replaced a smaller one already installed in the apartment. Petitioner requested a rent increase of $3.50 a month. This represents an amortization of the entire cost of the new refrigerator. Respondent, Rent Administrator, allowed an increase of 50 cents per month, representing amortization of the difference in cost between the old and the new refrigerators. Petitioner protested.

The Rent Administrator is correct in his holding. The increase is sought pursuant to the statutory authority of section 33 of the State Rent and Eviction Regulations. The statute allows a rent increase where there has been a corresponding increase of space, service, furnishings or equipment. If the old refrigerator were replaced there would be no increase [980]*980for the replacement because that would be merely maintaining the existing equipment. The increase in rent is only justified to the extent that the replacement represents a larger or superior piece of equipment.

The motion is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 Misc. 2d 979, 166 N.Y.S.2d 361, 1957 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3530, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/115-119-east-90th-street-corp-v-weaver-nysupct-1957.