Baum v. Crosfield
279 A.D. 1088, 112 N.Y.S.2d 769, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5938
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 19, 1952·Published·Cited by 6 cases
Opinion
The addition of furniture to an unfurnished apartment does not create a new and different housing accommodation. Therefore, the landlord may not collect more than the established maximum rent for the housing accommodation unfurnished unless and until such an order is issued by the rent administrator. The collection of any amount over the established maximum rent prior to the issuance of any such order by the administrator represents an overcharge. Present — Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, MacCrate and Schmidt, JJ. [280 App. Div. 805.]
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Baum v. Crosfield, 279 A.D. 1088, 112 N.Y.S.2d 769, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5938 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1952).
279 A.D. 1088 (Baum v. Crosfield) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Garcia v. Deibert
10 A.D.2d 349 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1960)
Spolan v. Capua
19 Misc. 2d 782 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1959)
Johnson v. Andrews
285 A.D. 983 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1955)
Laveist v. Roberts
21 Misc. 2d 785 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1953)
Ellenbogen v. Glassman
204 Misc. 469 (Albany City Court, 1953)
Strunk v. Hayes
281 A.D. 1006 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1953)