House v. State Division of Human Rights

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

House v. State Division of Human Rights

35 A.D.2d 563, 313 N.Y.S.2d 464, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3981

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJuly 20, 1970

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 35 A.D.2d 563 (House v. State Division of Human Rights) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

House v. State Division of Human Rights, 35 A.D.2d 563, 313 N.Y.S.2d 464, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3981 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Christ, P. J.,

Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur; Munder, J., dissents in part and votes to grant the petition and annul the determination in its entirety, with the following memorandum: In my opinion the evidence in this ease does not support a finding that petitioners’ rejection of the complainant’s application was based on her race. Rather, as I see it, the evidence supports petitioners’ position that the complainant was rejected 'because she had failed to meet certain income and credit requirements applicable to all prospective tenants. The record indicates that the complainant’s husband’s net weekly income was far less than the required equivalent of one month’s rent and that, in the past, several money judgments had been entered against the complainant. This court recognized in Matter of State Comm. for Human Rights v. Kennelly (30 A D 2d 310, 312, affd. 23 N Y 2d 722) the right of landlords to be selective and to reject a prospective tenant because of his or her failure to meet standards of acceptability other than those which concern themselves with one’s race or color or standards which are otherwise proscribed by statute. (See, also, Matter of State Comm. for Humom Rights v. Callan, 57 Misc 2d 504, 506-507.) This is what occurred here and in these circumstances I fail to see how petitioners’ conduct was in violation of section 296 (subd. 5, par. [c], el. [1]) of the Executive Law.

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

Christ, P. J.,

Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur; Munder, J., dissents in part and votes to grant the petition and annul the determination in its entirety, with the following memorandum: In my opinion the evidence in this ease does not support a finding that petitioners’ rejection of the complainant’s application was based on her race. Rather, as I see it, the evidence supports petitioners’ position that the complainant was rejected 'because she had failed to meet certain income and credit requirements applicable to all prospective tenants. The record indicates that the complainant’s husband’s net weekly income was far less than the required equivalent of one month’s rent and that, in the past, several money judgments had been entered against the complainant. This court recognized in Matter of State Comm. for Human Rights v. Kennelly (30 A D 2d 310, 312, affd. 23 N Y 2d 722) the right of landlords to be selective and to reject a prospective tenant because of his or her failure to meet standards of acceptability other than those which concern themselves with one’s race or color or standards which are otherwise proscribed by statute. (See, also, Matter of State Comm. for Humom Rights v. Callan, 57 Misc 2d 504, 506-507.) This is what occurred here and in these circumstances I fail to see how petitioners’ conduct was in violation of section 296 (subd. 5, par. [c], el. [1]) of the Executive Law.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 A.D.2d 563, 313 N.Y.S.2d 464, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3981, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/house-v-state-division-of-human-rights-nyappdiv-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack