Freidus v. Mendez

4 Misc. 2d 1048, 162 N.Y.S.2d 1001, 1956 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1513

Opinion

Per Curiam.

It was error to exclude oral testimony as to the rent paid for the housing accommodations in question on the date when residential rents were “ frozen ” by law. Evidence of this nature is admissible when the maximum rent is in dispute. (See Matter of Haynes v. Abrams, 1 A D 2d 583; Kalwar v. McKinnon, 152 F. 2d 263; Acevedo v. Syrian Prot. Church, 1 ; Burton v. Muolo, 149 N. Y. S. 2d 594.) The paper captioned “ Bequest for Information to Compute Equalization Adjustment ” was properly excluded.

The final order should be unanimously reversed upon the law and a new trial ordered in the summary proceeding and counterclaim with $30 costs to landlord to abide the event.

Hart, Arkwright and Browh, JJ., concur.

Final order reversed, etc.