In re Flushingside Realty & Construction Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Flushingside Realty & Construction Co.

271 A.D.2d 888

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

DecidedDecember 16, 1946

StatusPublished

This text of 271 A.D.2d 888 (In re Flushingside Realty & Construction Co.) 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 Flushingside Realty & Construction Co., 271 A.D.2d 888 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding brought by appellant-respondent, ¡lessee of the entire property, under section 4 of chapter 314 of the Laws of jl945, the Business Rent Law, to determine the reasonable rent of the respondiont.a-n,ppellants’ business space, the parties cross-appeal from a final order the reasonable rent at $324 a month from August 1, 1945. Order modified : on the law and the facts by striking therefrom the first, second and third Í ordering paragraphs and, as so modified, unanimously affirmed, without costs. ;] While we do not approve of all the reasoning of the Special Term, we agree » that the finding of $324 a month as the reasonable rent of the respondents-[889]*889appellants’ business space was proper. Present — Lewis, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Nolan, JJ. [186 Mise. 117.]

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

In a proceeding brought by appellant-respondent, ¡lessee of the entire property, under section 4 of chapter 314 of the Laws of jl945, the Business Rent Law, to determine the reasonable rent of the respondiont.a-n,ppellants’ business space, the parties cross-appeal from a final order the reasonable rent at $324 a month from August 1, 1945. Order modified : on the law and the facts by striking therefrom the first, second and third Í ordering paragraphs and, as so modified, unanimously affirmed, without costs. ;] While we do not approve of all the reasoning of the Special Term, we agree » that the finding of $324 a month as the reasonable rent of the respondents-[889]*889appellants’ business space was proper. Present — Lewis, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Nolan, JJ. [186 Mise. 117.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 888, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-flushingside-realty-construction-co-nyappdiv-1946.