In re 202 East 44th Street Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re 202 East 44th Street Corp.

277 A.D.2d 856

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

DecidedJune 13, 1950

StatusPublished

This text of 277 A.D.2d 856 (In re 202 East 44th Street Corp.) 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

In re 202 East 44th Street Corp., 277 A.D.2d 856 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

The parties have stipulated that the annual rental being paid by Schwarz Laboratories, Inc., at the time of the commencement of this proceeding was $12,650.04. Final order unanimously modified by fixing the rentals for the appellant Schwarz Laboratories, Inc., at $14,547.54 and for the appellant Pilot Industries, Inc., at $6,104.20 and, as so modified, affirmed, with costs to the appellants (Matter of Natanson [Tutundgy], 276 App. Div. 745). Even under the circumstances where an increase greater than 15% might be warranted, we do not construe the statute to permit a second cumulative increase of more than 15% in one proceeding, though that proceeding has been pending for over a year. Settle order on notice. Present — Peek, P. J., Cohn, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ.

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

The parties have stipulated that the annual rental being paid by Schwarz Laboratories, Inc., at the time of the commencement of this proceeding was $12,650.04. Final order unanimously modified by fixing the rentals for the appellant Schwarz Laboratories, Inc., at $14,547.54 and for the appellant Pilot Industries, Inc., at $6,104.20 and, as so modified, affirmed, with costs to the appellants (Matter of Natanson [Tutundgy], 276 App. Div. 745). Even under the circumstances where an increase greater than 15% might be warranted, we do not construe the statute to permit a second cumulative increase of more than 15% in one proceeding, though that proceeding has been pending for over a year. Settle order on notice. Present — Peek, P. J., Cohn, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 A.D.2d 856, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-202-east-44th-street-corp-nyappdiv-1950.