Kimmel v. Hughes

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Kimmel v. Hughes

35 Misc. 2d 161, 232 N.Y.S.2d 200, 1962 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3014

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 28, 1962

StatusPublished

This text of 35 Misc. 2d 161 (Kimmel v. Hughes) 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.

Bluebook

Kimmel v. Hughes, 35 Misc. 2d 161, 232 N.Y.S.2d 200, 1962 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3014 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The Municipal Court was bound by the order of the Rent Commission which duly ordered and adjusted maximum rent of the tenant’s apartment by reason of a subtenancy therein of tenant’s cousin (David Holding Corp. v. Held, 105 N. Y. S. 2d 27; 83 Ridge St. Corp. v. Schnitzer, 199 Misc. 826; Pontello v. O’Shea, 200 Misc. 417). Moreover, section 55 of the State Rent and Eviction Regulations specifies the persons who stand in the relationship of ‘ ‘ immediate family ’ ’. A cousin is not within the contemplation of this section.

The final order should be modified to the extent of granting landlord judgment for the additional sum of $21, and as modified affirmed, with $25 costs.

Concur — • Hoestadter, J. P., Hecht and Tilzer, JJ.

Pinal order modified, etc.

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

Per Curiam.

The Municipal Court was bound by the order of the Rent Commission which duly ordered and adjusted maximum rent of the tenant’s apartment by reason of a subtenancy therein of tenant’s cousin (David Holding Corp. v. Held, 105 N. Y. S. 2d 27; 83 Ridge St. Corp. v. Schnitzer, 199 Misc. 826; Pontello v. O’Shea, 200 Misc. 417). Moreover, section 55 of the State Rent and Eviction Regulations specifies the persons who stand in the relationship of ‘ ‘ immediate family ’ ’. A cousin is not within the contemplation of this section.

The final order should be modified to the extent of granting landlord judgment for the additional sum of $21, and as modified affirmed, with $25 costs.

Concur — • Hoestadter, J. P., Hecht and Tilzer, JJ.

Pinal order modified, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 Misc. 2d 161, 232 N.Y.S.2d 200, 1962 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3014, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kimmel-v-hughes-nyappterm-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack