Castillo v. Spilnyk
This text of 195 Misc. 386 (Castillo v. Spilnyk) 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 court was without jurisdiction to assess
penalties under the Housing and Rent Act of 1947 (U. S. Code, tit. 50, Appendix, § 1881 et seq.) for a period greater than twelve months prior to the commencement of the action, even though the Statute of Limitations was not pleaded (Lindner v. Miracle Realty Corp., N. Y. L. J., Oct. 18, 1947, p. 924, col. 7 [App. Term, 2d Dept.]; Thompson v. Taylor, 62 F. Supp. 930; Bowles v. Babcock, 65 F. Supp. 380).
It was error, too, for the court to have considered the area rent attorney’s interpretation in resolving the facts of this case.
The judgment should he unanimously reversed, on the law, and a new trial granted, with $30 costs to the defendants to abide the event.
Steinbrink, Fennelly and Golden, JJ., concur.
Judgment reversed, etc.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
195 Misc. 386, 91 N.Y.S.2d 436, 1949 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2620, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/castillo-v-spilnyk-nyappterm-1949.