Freidus v. Mendez

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Freidus v. Mendez

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

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedOctober 11, 1956

StatusPublished

This text of 4 Misc. 2d 1048 (Freidus v. Mendez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Freidus v. Mendez, 4 Misc. 2d 1048, 162 N.Y.S.2d 1001, 1956 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1513 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

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 [1049]*1049Misc 2d 66; 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.

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

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 [1049]*1049Misc 2d 66; 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 Misc. 2d 1048, 162 N.Y.S.2d 1001, 1956 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1513, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/freidus-v-mendez-nyappterm-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack