Alas Realty Corp. v. Abrams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Alas Realty Corp. v. Abrams

3 A.D.2d 842, 161 N.Y.S.2d 255, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5958

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 8, 1957

StatusPublished

This text of 3 A.D.2d 842 (Alas Realty Corp. v. Abrams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alas Realty Corp. v. Abrams, 3 A.D.2d 842, 161 N.Y.S.2d 255, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5958 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding to review a determination of the State Rent Administrator ordering a decrease in the maximum rent of an apartment by reason of the failure to paint and repair Venetian blinds, the landlord appeals from an order denying its petition and dismissing the proceeding. Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. There was substantial evidence before the State Rent Administrator establishing that Venetian blinds were furnished to the tenant on the date determining the maximum rent. Appellant was therefore obligated to maintain such service and equipment, under the provisions of the State Residential Rent Law (§ 4, subd. 5, par. [b]; L. 1946, ch. 274, as amd.) and the State Rent and Eviction Regulations (§ 24). We consider the tenant’s letter of December 16, 1954 respecting the failure to repair and clean the Venetian blinds, as initiating a new proceeding before the State Rent Commission, after a previous proceeding-had been terminated upon the landlord’s advice that the apartment had been painted. We therefore find it unnecessary to determine whether the local rent administrator had power to reopen the original proceeding under the doctrine of People ex rel. Finnegan v. McBride (226 N. Y. 252). Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Ughetta and Hallinan, JJ., concur; Beldoek, J., concurs in the result.

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

In a proceeding to review a determination of the State Rent Administrator ordering a decrease in the maximum rent of an apartment by reason of the failure to paint and repair Venetian blinds, the landlord appeals from an order denying its petition and dismissing the proceeding. Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. There was substantial evidence before the State Rent Administrator establishing that Venetian blinds were furnished to the tenant on the date determining the maximum rent. Appellant was therefore obligated to maintain such service and equipment, under the provisions of the State Residential Rent Law (§ 4, subd. 5, par. [b]; L. 1946, ch. 274, as amd.) and the State Rent and Eviction Regulations (§ 24). We consider the tenant’s letter of December 16, 1954 respecting the failure to repair and clean the Venetian blinds, as initiating a new proceeding before the State Rent Commission, after a previous proceeding-had been terminated upon the landlord’s advice that the apartment had been painted. We therefore find it unnecessary to determine whether the local rent administrator had power to reopen the original proceeding under the doctrine of People ex rel. Finnegan v. McBride (226 N. Y. 252). Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Ughetta and Hallinan, JJ., concur; Beldoek, J., concurs in the result.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 A.D.2d 842, 161 N.Y.S.2d 255, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5958, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alas-realty-corp-v-abrams-nyappdiv-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack