Arlow v. Imperial Crown Toy Corp.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Arlow v. Imperial Crown Toy Corp.

194 Misc. 541, 89 N.Y.S.2d 634, 1949 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2311

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMarch 24, 1949

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 194 Misc. 541 (Arlow v. Imperial Crown Toy Corp.) 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.

Bluebook

Arlow v. Imperial Crown Toy Corp., 194 Misc. 541, 89 N.Y.S.2d 634, 1949 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2311 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The space involved herein was used for commercial purposes on March 1, 1943, although then part of a larger rental unit. Subsequently, but prior to the present letting, the landlords improved the entire property by installing a heating system and plumbing facilities as well as in other respects. These improvements did not have the effect of taking the demised premises out- of the category of space ‘ ‘ used or occupied ” on the “ freeze ” date so as to permit fixation of emergency rent by agreement pursuant to subdivision (e) of section 2 of the Emergency Commercial Space Rent Control Law (L. 1945, ch. 3, as amd. by L. 1945, ch. 315, as amd.); nor was such agreement authorized under section 4 of the said statute since the present tenant did not occupy the space in question on January 24, 1945. (See Joanette Juniors v. Princeway Realty Corp., 272 App. Div. 420.)

The final order should be unanimously reversed on the law, with $30 costs to appellants, and petition dismissed without prejudice to any other proceeding available to the landlords to fix the value of the premises occupied by the tenant.

Steinbrink, Rubenstein and Froessel, JJ., concur.

Final order reversed, etc.

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

Per Curiam.

The space involved herein was used for commercial purposes on March 1, 1943, although then part of a larger rental unit. Subsequently, but prior to the present letting, the landlords improved the entire property by installing a heating system and plumbing facilities as well as in other respects. These improvements did not have the effect of taking the demised premises out- of the category of space ‘ ‘ used or occupied ” on the “ freeze ” date so as to permit fixation of emergency rent by agreement pursuant to subdivision (e) of section 2 of the Emergency Commercial Space Rent Control Law (L. 1945, ch. 3, as amd. by L. 1945, ch. 315, as amd.); nor was such agreement authorized under section 4 of the said statute since the present tenant did not occupy the space in question on January 24, 1945. (See Joanette Juniors v. Princeway Realty Corp., 272 App. Div. 420.)

The final order should be unanimously reversed on the law, with $30 costs to appellants, and petition dismissed without prejudice to any other proceeding available to the landlords to fix the value of the premises occupied by the tenant.

Steinbrink, Rubenstein and Froessel, JJ., concur.

Final order reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

194 Misc. 541, 89 N.Y.S.2d 634, 1949 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2311, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arlow-v-imperial-crown-toy-corp-nyappterm-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack