Armour Realty Corp. v. Ehrlich

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Armour Realty Corp. v. Ehrlich

188 Misc. 90, 69 N.Y.S.2d 461, 1946 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3404

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedDecember 19, 1946

StatusPublished

This text of 188 Misc. 90 (Armour Realty Corp. v. Ehrlich) 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

Armour Realty Corp. v. Ehrlich, 188 Misc. 90, 69 N.Y.S.2d 461, 1946 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3404 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Memorandum The proof presented by the land- ^ lord at the trial, showing the purposes for which the premises were to be used, was the same as that submitted to the Office of Price Administration, upon which it issued its certificate. It was error, therefore, to dismiss landlord’s petition. The issuance of the certificate made inapplicable the provisions of subdivision (a) of section 6 of the Rent Regulation for Housing in the New York City Defense-Rental Area (8 Federal Register 13917, as amd.) as to the grounds for removal. (New York City Dousing Authority v. Awant, 183 Misc. 823.) The State Commercial Rent Law (L. 1945, ch. 3, as amd.) had no application. The Administrator has power to permit, under subdivision (b) of section 6 (8 Federal Register 13918 as amd.), a landlord to proceed under local law when the administrator determines that the landlord’s withdrawal of the premises from the rental market will not be a circumvention or evasion of the purposes of the statute. The administrator has exercised his power and evidence was offered to show that the landlord was withdrawing the premises from the housing rental market, which is the rental market "covered by the certificate.

[92]*92The final order should he reversed upon the law, and new trial granted, with $30 costs to landlord to abide the event.

MacCrate, Steinbrink and Fennelly, JJ., .concur.

Order reversed,' etc.

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

Per Curiam.

Memorandum The proof presented by the land- ^ lord at the trial, showing the purposes for which the premises were to be used, was the same as that submitted to the Office of Price Administration, upon which it issued its certificate. It was error, therefore, to dismiss landlord’s petition. The issuance of the certificate made inapplicable the provisions of subdivision (a) of section 6 of the Rent Regulation for Housing in the New York City Defense-Rental Area (8 Federal Register 13917, as amd.) as to the grounds for removal. (New York City Dousing Authority v. Awant, 183 Misc. 823.) The State Commercial Rent Law (L. 1945, ch. 3, as amd.) had no application. The Administrator has power to permit, under subdivision (b) of section 6 (8 Federal Register 13918 as amd.), a landlord to proceed under local law when the administrator determines that the landlord’s withdrawal of the premises from the rental market will not be a circumvention or evasion of the purposes of the statute. The administrator has exercised his power and evidence was offered to show that the landlord was withdrawing the premises from the housing rental market, which is the rental market "covered by the certificate.

[92]*92The final order should he reversed upon the law, and new trial granted, with $30 costs to landlord to abide the event.

MacCrate, Steinbrink and Fennelly, JJ., .concur.

Order reversed,' etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 Misc. 90, 69 N.Y.S.2d 461, 1946 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3404, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/armour-realty-corp-v-ehrlich-nyappterm-1946.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack