Agins v. Aronowitz
This text of 204 Misc. 250 (Agins v. Aronowitz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The State Rent Administrator may intervene in a proceeding of this kind (State Residential Rent Law, § 11, subd. 4, as amd. by L. 1951, ch. 443, § 1; Matter of Sbeglia v. McGoldrick, N. Y. L. J. Oct. 17,1952, p. 851, col. 1). The moving affidavit discloses that on the date of trial the landlord was aware but did not apprise the court of the fact that the Rent [251]*251Administrator had rejected as invalid and not made in good faith the lease purporting to increase the maximum rent. Accordingly, in the interests of substantial justice, the motion for a new trial should have been granted (Nugent v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 46 App. Div. 105; N. Y. City Mun. Ct. Code, § 6, subd. 7; Di Caprio v. Di Grazia, N. Y. L. J., March 27,1953, p. 1033, col. 1).
The order should be unanimously reversed upon the law and the facts, without costs and motion in all respects granted.
Walsh, Murphy and Ughetta, JJ., concur.
Order reversed, etc.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
204 Misc. 250, 125 N.Y.S.2d 849, 1953 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2381, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/agins-v-aronowitz-nyappterm-1953.