Gershberg v. Braverman

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Gershberg v. Braverman

40 A.2d 288, 132 N.J.L. 301, 1944 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 43

DecidedDecember 28, 1944

StatusPublished

This text of 40 A.2d 288 (Gershberg v. Braverman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gershberg v. Braverman, 40 A.2d 288, 132 N.J.L. 301, 1944 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 43 (N.J. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Parker, J.

The suit is for a penalty of $50 per month for ten successive months, claimed because of an overcharge of rent for an apartment in violation of regulations of the O. P. A. The District Court found for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.

Plaintiff rented the apartment at $40 per month, the price limit set by the O. P. A. The letting did not include garage; facilities, but defendant had a garage in a separate building, and the parties agreed on $5 a month for use of the garage, and plaintiff paid $45 per month for ten months, and then brought the present suit for the penalty. The trial court held, in effect, that the penalty applied to overcharge for “housing accommodations” and that garage space in a separate building was no part of “housing accommodations” but a distinct matter not covered by the regulation invoked; and awarded judgment for defendant tenant. With that view we are in accord: and the judgment under review is accordingly affirmed, with costs.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Parker, J.

The suit is for a penalty of $50 per month for ten successive months, claimed because of an overcharge of rent for an apartment in violation of regulations of the O. P. A. The District Court found for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.

Plaintiff rented the apartment at $40 per month, the price limit set by the O. P. A. The letting did not include garage; facilities, but defendant had a garage in a separate building, and the parties agreed on $5 a month for use of the garage, and plaintiff paid $45 per month for ten months, and then brought the present suit for the penalty. The trial court held, in effect, that the penalty applied to overcharge for “housing accommodations” and that garage space in a separate building was no part of “housing accommodations” but a distinct matter not covered by the regulation invoked; and awarded judgment for defendant tenant. With that view we are in accord: and the judgment under review is accordingly affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.2d 288, 132 N.J.L. 301, 1944 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 43, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gershberg-v-braverman-nj-1944.