Di Renzo v. Finkelstein

New York Supreme Court

Di Renzo v. Finkelstein

192 Misc. 810, 84 N.Y.S.2d 311, 1948 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3562

DecidedSeptember 22, 1948

StatusPublished

This text of 192 Misc. 810 (Di Renzo v. Finkelstein) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Di Renzo v. Finkelstein, 192 Misc. 810, 84 N.Y.S.2d 311, 1948 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3562 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

C. A. Johnson, J..

Proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act for the review of the determination of the temporary city housing rent commission, denying petitioner’s application for a certificate of eviction.

The petitioner desires the use of a portion of his premises for his own immediate household, consisting of himself and his wife, two unmarried children and a married daughter and son-in-law. The application was disallowed by the temporary city housing rent commission on the ground that the space was not desired by the petitioner for his own personal use and occupancy.

The court construes the provisions of Local Law No. 66 of 1947 of the City of New York as including in the term ‘ ‘ his immediate and personal use and occupancy ” of a landlord, use and [811]*811occupancy by members of tbe landlord’s immediate family. In tbis court’s opinion, tbe limitation upon sucb language sought to be imposed by regulation of tbe commission exceeds tbe authority conferred by tbe statute upon tbe commission. Tbe present determination must, therefore, be annulled and tbe petition granted.

Proceed on notice.

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

C. A. Johnson, J..

Proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act for the review of the determination of the temporary city housing rent commission, denying petitioner’s application for a certificate of eviction.

The petitioner desires the use of a portion of his premises for his own immediate household, consisting of himself and his wife, two unmarried children and a married daughter and son-in-law. The application was disallowed by the temporary city housing rent commission on the ground that the space was not desired by the petitioner for his own personal use and occupancy.

The court construes the provisions of Local Law No. 66 of 1947 of the City of New York as including in the term ‘ ‘ his immediate and personal use and occupancy ” of a landlord, use and [811]*811occupancy by members of tbe landlord’s immediate family. In tbis court’s opinion, tbe limitation upon sucb language sought to be imposed by regulation of tbe commission exceeds tbe authority conferred by tbe statute upon tbe commission. Tbe present determination must, therefore, be annulled and tbe petition granted.

Proceed on notice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 Misc. 810, 84 N.Y.S.2d 311, 1948 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3562, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/di-renzo-v-finkelstein-nysupct-1948.