MATTER OF ELM REALTY, INC. v. Office of Rent Control

New York Court of Appeals

MATTER OF ELM REALTY, INC. v. Office of Rent Control

426 N.E.2d 175, 54 N.Y.2d 650, 442 N.Y.S.2d 768, 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 2610

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 29, 1981

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 426 N.E.2d 175 (MATTER OF ELM REALTY, INC. v. Office of Rent Control) 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

MATTER OF ELM REALTY, INC. v. Office of Rent Control, 426 N.E.2d 175, 54 N.Y.2d 650, 442 N.Y.S.2d 768, 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 2610 (N.Y. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be modified by reinstating the rent commissioner’s determination relating to Elm Realty, Inc., and the petitioner Visco insofar as the commissioner directed Visco to repay illegally collected rent.

With respect to Elm Realty, Inc., the commissioner did not misconstrue the statute (Administrative Code of City of New York, § Y51-11.0, subd b, par [2], cl [a]) or abuse his discretion as a matter of law by imposing a penalty for each monthly overcharge of rent.

With respect to petitioner Visco the Appellate Division erred in holding that he could not be held personally responsible for his acts or be required to make restitution. The applicable section of the Administrative Code (Y5110.0) expressly provides that “any person” may be subject to civil penalties for violating the law and, of course, he can be compelled to refund the sums unlawfully obtained. However, the civil penalties which are penal in nature and would go to the governing body rather than a private litigant (cf. Carr v Rischer, 119 NY 117), must be held to have abated upon the death of the petitioner (cf. People v Mintz, 20 NY2d 753, 770).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

*653 Order modified, with costs to appellant, in accordance with the memorandum herein and, as so modified, affirmed.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be modified by reinstating the rent commissioner’s determination relating to Elm Realty, Inc., and the petitioner Visco insofar as the commissioner directed Visco to repay illegally collected rent.

With respect to Elm Realty, Inc., the commissioner did not misconstrue the statute (Administrative Code of City of New York, § Y51-11.0, subd b, par [2], cl [a]) or abuse his discretion as a matter of law by imposing a penalty for each monthly overcharge of rent.

With respect to petitioner Visco the Appellate Division erred in holding that he could not be held personally responsible for his acts or be required to make restitution. The applicable section of the Administrative Code (Y5110.0) expressly provides that “any person” may be subject to civil penalties for violating the law and, of course, he can be compelled to refund the sums unlawfully obtained. However, the civil penalties which are penal in nature and would go to the governing body rather than a private litigant (cf. Carr v Rischer, 119 NY 117), must be held to have abated upon the death of the petitioner (cf. People v Mintz, 20 NY2d 753, 770).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

*653 Order modified, with costs to appellant, in accordance with the memorandum herein and, as so modified, affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

426 N.E.2d 175, 54 N.Y.2d 650, 442 N.Y.S.2d 768, 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 2610, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-elm-realty-inc-v-office-of-rent-control-ny-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack