Felner v. Office of Rent Control

New York Court of Appeals

Felner v. Office of Rent Control

262 N.E.2d 217, 27 N.Y.2d 692, 314 N.Y.S.2d 11, 1970 N.Y. LEXIS 1175

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 1, 1970

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 262 N.E.2d 217 (Felner v. Office of Rent Control) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Felner v. Office of Rent Control, 262 N.E.2d 217, 27 N.Y.2d 692, 314 N.Y.S.2d 11, 1970 N.Y. LEXIS 1175 (N.Y. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiffs’ constitutional challenges to the system of rent regulation in the City of New York are without merit. The 6% return on the assessed valuation of their building allowed under the City Bent Law (Administrative Code of City of New York, ch. 51, tit. Y, § Y51-5.0) is “ entirely adequate to insure a landlord against an unconstitutional confiscation of his property.” (Plaza Mgt. Co. v. City Rent Agency, 25 N Y 2d 630, 632.) Moreover, the formula for computing return has been consistently upheld as reasonable (see Plaza Mgt. Co. v. City Rent Agency, 25 N Y 2d 630, supra; Matter of [694]*694Hartley Holding Corp. v. Gabel, 13 N Y 2d 306; Bucho Holding Co. v. State Rent Comm., 11 N Y 2d 469), and the plaintiffs have no right to the use of a different formula which would take into account the individual debt position of every landlord. (See Bowles v. Willingham, 321 U. S. 503, 517.)

Nor are the plaintiffs denied equal protection of the laws by the difference in treatment between their pre-1947 building subject to the City Rent Law (Administrative Code, ch. 51, tit. Y) and post-1947 structures regulated by the new Rent Stabilization Law (Administrative Code, ch. 51, tit. YY). The existence of two types of regulation may not be stamped as unreasonable in light of the differences which existed between controlled and uncontrolled housing at the time the Rent Stabilization Law was enacted and the need to encourage the continuation of new residential construction in New York City. (See 8200 Realty Corp. v. Lindsay, 27 N Y 2d 124, also decided today.)

The judgment appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.

Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Scileppi, Bergan, Breitel, Jasen and Gibson concur in Per Curiam opinion; Judge Burke taking no part.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

The plaintiffs’ constitutional challenges to the system of rent regulation in the City of New York are without merit. The 6% return on the assessed valuation of their building allowed under the City Bent Law (Administrative Code of City of New York, ch. 51, tit. Y, § Y51-5.0) is “ entirely adequate to insure a landlord against an unconstitutional confiscation of his property.” (Plaza Mgt. Co. v. City Rent Agency, 25 N Y 2d 630, 632.) Moreover, the formula for computing return has been consistently upheld as reasonable (see Plaza Mgt. Co. v. City Rent Agency, 25 N Y 2d 630, supra; Matter of [694]*694Hartley Holding Corp. v. Gabel, 13 N Y 2d 306; Bucho Holding Co. v. State Rent Comm., 11 N Y 2d 469), and the plaintiffs have no right to the use of a different formula which would take into account the individual debt position of every landlord. (See Bowles v. Willingham, 321 U. S. 503, 517.)

Nor are the plaintiffs denied equal protection of the laws by the difference in treatment between their pre-1947 building subject to the City Rent Law (Administrative Code, ch. 51, tit. Y) and post-1947 structures regulated by the new Rent Stabilization Law (Administrative Code, ch. 51, tit. YY). The existence of two types of regulation may not be stamped as unreasonable in light of the differences which existed between controlled and uncontrolled housing at the time the Rent Stabilization Law was enacted and the need to encourage the continuation of new residential construction in New York City. (See 8200 Realty Corp. v. Lindsay, 27 N Y 2d 124, also decided today.)

The judgment appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.

Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Scileppi, Bergan, Breitel, Jasen and Gibson concur in Per Curiam opinion; Judge Burke taking no part.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 N.E.2d 217, 27 N.Y.2d 692, 314 N.Y.S.2d 11, 1970 N.Y. LEXIS 1175, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/felner-v-office-of-rent-control-ny-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack