Jacobs v. Stoll
This text of 188 Misc. 117 (Jacobs v. Stoll) 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.
Opinion
We hold that the emergency rent control statute, and more pertinently the parts attacked by tenant-respondent, to be constitutional and that such attacked parts do not violate the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States or sections 6 and 11, or either section, of article I of the Constitution of the State of New York (Twentieth Century Associates v. Waldman, 294 N. Y. 571; see, also, Gilpin v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N. Y., 64 N. Y. S. 2d 436
[120]*120As the evidence overwhelmingly preponderated in favor of the landlord-appellant, the decision below in favor of the tenant-respondent was unwarranted. The tenant-respondent neither had the two-year written lease asserted, nor was he a holdover tenant for one year. He was a tenant remaining in possession under the emergency statute.
The final order should be reversed, with $30 costs, and final order directed for landlord, with costs.
Hammer, Shibntag and Hecht, JJ., concur.
Order reversed, etc.
Revd, on other grounds 271 App, Div, 499.— [Rep.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
188 Misc. 117, 69 N.Y.S.2d 240, 1946 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3397, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jacobs-v-stoll-nyappterm-1946.