Kerbs v. State Rent Administrator

New York Supreme Court

Kerbs v. State Rent Administrator

15 Misc. 2d 99, 181 N.Y.S.2d 249, 1958 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2911

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 21, 1958

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 15 Misc. 2d 99 (Kerbs v. State Rent Administrator) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kerbs v. State Rent Administrator, 15 Misc. 2d 99, 181 N.Y.S.2d 249, 1958 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2911 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

Sidney A. Fine, J.

The determination of the Rent Administrator that the operation of the two passenger elevators between midnight and 8:00 a.m. by only one attendant, instead of by two, did not deprive the tenants of an 11 essential service ” may not be held arbitrary or capricious. The tenants’ acquiescence for many years was a factor entitled to be considered in evaluating the importance of having two manual operators during the hours in question, as was the fact that the number of passengers requiring elevator service during those hours is relatively small. The effect of giving up one elevator operator on the protection of the lobby of the building was not necessarily substantial or serious, in view of the fact that while both elevators were in operation neither attendant would be in the lobby. There was, [100]*100in the circumstances, substantial basis for the determination that although the elimination of one operator curtailed services which had existed on March 1, 1950, it did not eliminate an “ essential service ”. In this situation, the court may not substitute its own views for those of the Administrator. This may be done only when the Administrator’s determination is without basis and, therefore, arbitrary or whimsical.

Motion denied.

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

Sidney A. Fine, J.

The determination of the Rent Administrator that the operation of the two passenger elevators between midnight and 8:00 a.m. by only one attendant, instead of by two, did not deprive the tenants of an 11 essential service ” may not be held arbitrary or capricious. The tenants’ acquiescence for many years was a factor entitled to be considered in evaluating the importance of having two manual operators during the hours in question, as was the fact that the number of passengers requiring elevator service during those hours is relatively small. The effect of giving up one elevator operator on the protection of the lobby of the building was not necessarily substantial or serious, in view of the fact that while both elevators were in operation neither attendant would be in the lobby. There was, [100]*100in the circumstances, substantial basis for the determination that although the elimination of one operator curtailed services which had existed on March 1, 1950, it did not eliminate an “ essential service ”. In this situation, the court may not substitute its own views for those of the Administrator. This may be done only when the Administrator’s determination is without basis and, therefore, arbitrary or whimsical.

Motion denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 Misc. 2d 99, 181 N.Y.S.2d 249, 1958 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2911, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kerbs-v-state-rent-administrator-nysupct-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack