Leighton v. Bearman

New York Court of Appeals

Leighton v. Bearman

100 N.E.2d 50, 302 N.Y. 865, 1951 N.Y. LEXIS 982

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 1, 1951

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 100 N.E.2d 50 (Leighton v. Bearman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Leighton v. Bearman, 100 N.E.2d 50, 302 N.Y. 865, 1951 N.Y. LEXIS 982 (N.Y. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Loughban, Ch. J., Lewis, Desmond and Dye, JJ.; Conway, Fuld and Feoessel, JJ., dissent in the following memorandum: As to the order of the Federal Housing Expediter of July 14, 1949, which increased the rent to $47.48 a month, as of November 15,1948 — the date upon which the landlords made their application — we believe that such order fixed and determined the maximum rental under the State Emergency Housing Rent Control Law (L. 1950, ch. 250) from the latter date through August, 1950. As to the order of the Federal Housing Expediter of July 18, 1950, which increased the rent to $51.14 a month, as of June 3, 1949 — the date upon which the landlords made their application •— we believe that the Federal Expediter had power to issue such an order and that such order was valid and effective, even though it was handed down after May 1, 1950, the date when ££ all rent controls ” under the Federal act were ££ terminated ” in view of the circumstance that that official’s jurisdiction continued and survived for the purpose of disposing of appeals timely taken prior to May 1, 1950. The “ rent controls ” which were terminated are those prescribed by the statute; the Federal agency’s decision covering a period prior to such termination was in no wise proscribed. (Housing and Rent Act of 1947, § 204, subds. [f], [j]; U. S. Code, tit. 50, Appendix, § 1894; U. S. Code, tit. 1, § 109; 61 [868]*868U. S. Stat. 633, 635.) We accept such determination here and may “ not review or overrule it for supposed invalidity.” (Wasservogel v. Meyerowitz, 300 N. Y. 125, 133; see, also, Sondheimer v. Beck, 302 N. Y. 832; Matter of Schmoll, Inc., v. Federal Reserve Bank, 286 N. Y. 503, 509.)

The order of the Appellate Division and the judgment of the Municipal Court entered thereon should be modified and a final order and judgment granted in favor of the landlords for $107.45, as demanded in the petition.

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

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Loughban, Ch. J., Lewis, Desmond and Dye, JJ.; Conway, Fuld and Feoessel, JJ., dissent in the following memorandum: As to the order of the Federal Housing Expediter of July 14, 1949, which increased the rent to $47.48 a month, as of November 15,1948 — the date upon which the landlords made their application — we believe that such order fixed and determined the maximum rental under the State Emergency Housing Rent Control Law (L. 1950, ch. 250) from the latter date through August, 1950. As to the order of the Federal Housing Expediter of July 18, 1950, which increased the rent to $51.14 a month, as of June 3, 1949 — the date upon which the landlords made their application •— we believe that the Federal Expediter had power to issue such an order and that such order was valid and effective, even though it was handed down after May 1, 1950, the date when ££ all rent controls ” under the Federal act were ££ terminated ” in view of the circumstance that that official’s jurisdiction continued and survived for the purpose of disposing of appeals timely taken prior to May 1, 1950. The “ rent controls ” which were terminated are those prescribed by the statute; the Federal agency’s decision covering a period prior to such termination was in no wise proscribed. (Housing and Rent Act of 1947, § 204, subds. [f], [j]; U. S. Code, tit. 50, Appendix, § 1894; U. S. Code, tit. 1, § 109; 61 [868]*868U. S. Stat. 633, 635.) We accept such determination here and may “ not review or overrule it for supposed invalidity.” (Wasservogel v. Meyerowitz, 300 N. Y. 125, 133; see, also, Sondheimer v. Beck, 302 N. Y. 832; Matter of Schmoll, Inc., v. Federal Reserve Bank, 286 N. Y. 503, 509.)

The order of the Appellate Division and the judgment of the Municipal Court entered thereon should be modified and a final order and judgment granted in favor of the landlords for $107.45, as demanded in the petition.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 N.E.2d 50, 302 N.Y. 865, 1951 N.Y. LEXIS 982, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leighton-v-bearman-ny-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack