Lubowitz v. McGoldrick

199 Misc. 615, 106 N.Y.S.2d 883, 1951 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2249
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 24, 1951
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 199 Misc. 615 (Lubowitz v. McGoldrick) 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
Lubowitz v. McGoldrick, 199 Misc. 615, 106 N.Y.S.2d 883, 1951 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2249 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1951).

Opinion

Murphy, J.

Application by petitioner to review the determination of the State Rent Administrator and for an order annulling such determination reducing the maximum rent registered for failure to maintain the existing services.

The record abundantly supports the determination of the respondent that the landlord has failed to comply with subdivision 2 of section 34 of the Rent and Eviction Regulations. The respondent under such regulation may order a decrease of the maximum rent due to the failure of the landlord to properly maintain essential services included in the maximum rent (Rent and Eviction Regulations, § 23). The petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to sustain his contention that a three-year custom prevailed in the painting of the tenant’s apartment instead of the two-year custom established by the respondent.

[616]*616An examination of the law and regulations fails to reveal any requirement making it mandatory upon the administrator to grant a hearing. Such hearing, if granted, is merely permissive in nature and subject to the administrator’s discretion (State Residential Rent Law [L. 1946, ch. 274, as amd. by L. 1950, ch. 250], § 5, subd. 1; §7, subd. 3; Rent and Eviction Regulations, § 85, subd. 8; § 98, subd. 6; Matter of Cohen v. McGoldrick, 198 Misc. 1036). All of the facts presented by the record amply indicate that in the exercise of such discretion there was no need for an oral hearing. The failure to grant a hearing under the circumstances does not warrant a reversal of the respondent’s determination.

There being a rational basis and warrant in the record both as to fact and law, the determination will not be disturbed (Matter of Mounting & Finishing Co. v. McGoldrick, 294 N. Y. 104, 108; Matter of Park East Land Corp. v. Finkelstein, 299 N. Y. 70).

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

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

Related

Hammond v. McGoldrick
207 Misc. 36 (New York Supreme Court, 1955)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
199 Misc. 615, 106 N.Y.S.2d 883, 1951 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2249, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lubowitz-v-mcgoldrick-nysupct-1951.