Krauss v. McGoldrick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Krauss v. McGoldrick

282 A.D. 1071, 126 N.Y.S.2d 467, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5847

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

DecidedDecember 28, 1953

StatusPublished

This text of 282 A.D. 1071 (Krauss v. McGoldrick) 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

Krauss v. McGoldrick, 282 A.D. 1071, 126 N.Y.S.2d 467, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5847 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, to review a determination of the State Rent Administrator affirming an order of the local rent administrator reducing the rent of an apartment in a multiple dwelling on the ground of the landlord’s failure to paint. Order dismissing the petition reversed, without costs, the determination annulled, and the matter remitted to the State Rent Administrator for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. If the statements in the letter and affidavits submitted by appellants are found to be facts, such facts tend to establish the contention that the practice was to paint only when the apartment was taken by a new tenant and not during a tenant's occupancy. If such statements have been rejected because of the form of the proof, the form appearing to be that frequently acted upon by the administrator, the appellants should be given an opportunity to submit evidence in a form satisfactory to him. Nolan, P. J., Adel, MaeCrate, Schmidt and Beldock, JJ., concur.

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

Proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, to review a determination of the State Rent Administrator affirming an order of the local rent administrator reducing the rent of an apartment in a multiple dwelling on the ground of the landlord’s failure to paint. Order dismissing the petition reversed, without costs, the determination annulled, and the matter remitted to the State Rent Administrator for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. If the statements in the letter and affidavits submitted by appellants are found to be facts, such facts tend to establish the contention that the practice was to paint only when the apartment was taken by a new tenant and not during a tenant's occupancy. If such statements have been rejected because of the form of the proof, the form appearing to be that frequently acted upon by the administrator, the appellants should be given an opportunity to submit evidence in a form satisfactory to him. Nolan, P. J., Adel, MaeCrate, Schmidt and Beldock, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D. 1071, 126 N.Y.S.2d 467, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5847, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/krauss-v-mcgoldrick-nyappdiv-1953.