Castillo v. Spilnyk

195 Misc. 386, 91 N.Y.S.2d 436, 1949 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2620
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided June 2, 1949·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

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

Castillo v. Spilnyk, 195 Misc. 386, 91 N.Y.S.2d 436, 1949 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2620 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1949).

195 Misc. 386 (Castillo v. Spilnyk) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kravitz v. Nankin
200 Misc. 219 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1951)