Comir Realty Co. v. Berman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Comir Realty Co. v. Berman

29 A.D.2d 965, 290 N.Y.S.2d 716, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4241

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 15, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 29 A.D.2d 965 (Comir Realty Co. v. Berman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Comir Realty Co. v. Berman, 29 A.D.2d 965, 290 N.Y.S.2d 716, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4241 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Two judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County, both dated October 21,1966, each dismissing a respective one of the two proceedings, reversed, on the law, without costs, and both proceedings remitted to the respondent City Rent and Rehabilitation Administrator for the purpose of making a determination not inconsistent with the views expressed herein. No questions of fact were considered. In our opinion the record fails to disclose a rational basis for the determination by respondent that the boxed-in risers installed herein were “ exposed ” risers for Rent Commission purposes, thus limiting the increase in maximum monthly rental allowable therefor to $1 a month. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Hopkins, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.

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

Two judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County, both dated October 21,1966, each dismissing a respective one of the two proceedings, reversed, on the law, without costs, and both proceedings remitted to the respondent City Rent and Rehabilitation Administrator for the purpose of making a determination not inconsistent with the views expressed herein. No questions of fact were considered. In our opinion the record fails to disclose a rational basis for the determination by respondent that the boxed-in risers installed herein were “ exposed ” risers for Rent Commission purposes, thus limiting the increase in maximum monthly rental allowable therefor to $1 a month. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Hopkins, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.2d 965, 290 N.Y.S.2d 716, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4241, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/comir-realty-co-v-berman-nyappdiv-1968.