Laveist v. Roberts

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Laveist v. Roberts

21 Misc. 2d 785, 127 N.Y.S.2d 1, 1953 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1400

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedOctober 29, 1953

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 21 Misc. 2d 785 (Laveist v. Roberts) 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

Laveist v. Roberts, 21 Misc. 2d 785, 127 N.Y.S.2d 1, 1953 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1400 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The landlord testified that the established maximum rent for the apartment nonfurnished is $36.80 per month, but that she had applied to the Bent Administrator for a higher rental for the apartment as furnished accommodations. However, up to the time of the trial no new rental had been fixed or any order issued for an increase. Her own testimony establishes the validity of the tenant’s defense of overcharge. The addition of new furniture to a nonfurnished apartment does not create a new housing accommodation which would entitle the landlord to collect a rental in excess of the existing maximum, prior to the issuance of an order by the Bent Administrator. (Baum v. Crosfield, 279 App. Div, 1088; Strunk v. Hayes, 281 App. Div. 1006; Pereira v. Imperial Apts., 122 N. Y. S, 2d 180.)

The final order and judgment should he reversed and new trial ordered, with $30 costs to appellant to abide the event.

Concur — Eder, Schreiber and Hecht, JJ.

Final order and judgment reversed, etc.

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

Per Curiam,

The landlord testified that the established maximum rent for the apartment nonfurnished is $36.80 per month, but that she had applied to the Bent Administrator for a higher rental for the apartment as furnished accommodations. However, up to the time of the trial no new rental had been fixed or any order issued for an increase. Her own testimony establishes the validity of the tenant’s defense of overcharge. The addition of new furniture to a nonfurnished apartment does not create a new housing accommodation which would entitle the landlord to collect a rental in excess of the existing maximum, prior to the issuance of an order by the Bent Administrator. (Baum v. Crosfield, 279 App. Div, 1088; Strunk v. Hayes, 281 App. Div. 1006; Pereira v. Imperial Apts., 122 N. Y. S, 2d 180.)

The final order and judgment should he reversed and new trial ordered, with $30 costs to appellant to abide the event.

Concur — Eder, Schreiber and Hecht, JJ.

Final order and judgment reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 Misc. 2d 785, 127 N.Y.S.2d 1, 1953 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1400, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/laveist-v-roberts-nyappterm-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack