Palisade West Associates v. Aranow

291 A.2d 389, 119 N.J. Super. 322, 1972 N.J. Super. LEXIS 688
CourtUnited States District Court
DecidedMay 26, 1972
StatusPublished

This text of 291 A.2d 389 (Palisade West Associates v. Aranow) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States District Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Palisade West Associates v. Aranow, 291 A.2d 389, 119 N.J. Super. 322, 1972 N.J. Super. LEXIS 688 (usdistct 1972).

Opinion

Huot, J. D. C.

This is a landlord-tenant action wherein plaintiff seeks possession on the grounds of nonpayment of rent. Defendants concede that the rent reserved under a lease dated March 1, 1973 was not paid for the months of April and May 1973. However, defendants did tender for the months in question the amount of the rent reserved in their prior lease which expired March 31, 1973. The prior rent was $430 a month. The new rent is $476 a month. Additional parking charges are not involved in this contest.

The tenants raise the following defenses:

1. The landlord failed to comply with the notice requirements of section 301.501 et seq. of the rules and regulations [324]*324of the Cost of Living Council. 6 CFR § 301.501 (12/30/71).

2. The rental increase charged by the landlord is in excess of that permitted by said rules and regulations.

3. They should be allowed a set-off against the rent for interest due them, which accrued on their security deposit under the expired lease.

The landlord admits that the notice to the tenants does not strictly comply with section 301.501 et seq., but argues that the section was complied with in substance if not in form. It also contends that it strictly followed the formula prescribed to arrive at the new rental of $476 a month. In regard to the third defense, the landlord contends that a tenant is not entitled to set-off interest due on money deposited as security in an interest-bearing account, as required by L. 1971, c. 223.

The notice given by the landlord and admittedly received by the tenants was dated January 26, 1972 and reads as follows:

OFFICE OF THE UNDERSIGNED
Suite 1002
147 West 42nd Street
New York, N. Y. 10036
Phone (212) 524-0563
Dated : January 26, 1972
Mr. (s) Martin Aranow Apt. 6-D
2185 Lemoine Avenue
Fort Lee, N. J. 07024
Dear Mr. Aranow:
As of the 29th of December, 1971, a statement was issued by the Price Commission outlining the procedures and regulations which are to govern rent increases during the President’s Freeze.
Please, therefore, consider this as notification that as of April 1, 1972 , your new rental will be $476.00 , and is within the allowed percentage of 8% plus 2.5% permitted within your ¡building.
Old Rent: $430.00
Increase: 46.00
New Rent: $476.00
The apartments for which renewals were written during the base rent period and upon which the computations for Bridge Plaza Towers were determined, are as follows:
[325]*3254-H, 3-J, 8-J, 4-K, 4-Ij, 7N
All apartments wliich rent for $500.00 or more have been exempted from the above controls. For your further information, we have attached a copy of statement issued by the Price Commission.
Very truly yours,
FORT BRIDGE COMPANY
A. Stern
AS/ag
Enel.

Attached to said notice was a photostated article entitled “Price PaneFs Statement on Rules on Rent,” and contains the sub-legend “Special to The New York Times.” It purports to be from Washington on December 30. At the beginning of this article this introduction appears: “Following is the text of the supplemental guidance on rent regulations issued today by the Price Commission.” There then follows a press release explaining the action of the Price Commission, a copy of which is annexed hereto.

Section 301.502, “Notification”, provides in pertinent part:

In the case of a proposed rent increase to which the present lessee of the residence or other real property would be subject—
(a) Requirement of 30-daps’ notice.
The lessor must notify the lessee of the proposed rent increase at least 30 days before the date it is to become effective;
(b) Contents of notice. The notice shall be in writing and shall set forth —
(1) The amount of the monthly rent before and after the proposed increase;
(2) The percentage increase and dollar amount of the proposed increase;
(3) The effective date of the proposed increase;
(4) The amount of the proposed increase which is attributable to capital improvements, State and local real estate taxes, and State and local fees, levies and charges for municipal services, and any increase allowable under § 301.102(a) (1) ;
(5) The base rent and an explanation of the manner in which the base rent was determined, including identification of units involved and dates and amounts of transactions where applicable;
(6) The method of computation of the proposed increase; and
(7) The following statements:
(A) You have the right to examine the documentation which supports this proposed rent increase in order to satisfy yourself that [326]*326the proposed rent increase is in accordance with the rent regulations prescribed by the Price Commission. This documentation is located at _______________________________________________: and may be inspected upon request between the hours of .......... through ......... on -------------------------------
(specify days of week).
(B) If you do not understand the basis for this increase or believe that the increase is not allowable under the rent regulations of the Price Commission, advise us and we will arrange a suitable meeting time with you at a location convenient to your residence to discuss the proposed increase and explain its justification.
. (C) It is hereby declared under the penalties of perjury that the foregoing statements and facts are true to the best of my (our) knowledge and belief; and that the increase in your rent is not in violation of the Economic Stabilization Regulations.

The first question presented to the court is whether the letter of January 26, 1972 and the photostatic attachment comply with the requirements of section 301.502. This court has authority to entertain the defense of noncompliance with Price Commission regulations. Brookchester Inc. v. Matthews, 118 N. J. Super. 565 (Cty. D. Ct. 1972).

Subsection (a) and subdivisions (1), (2) and (3) of subdivision (b) were complied with by the notice. The notice was given January 26, 1972, which is more than 30 days before the increase would become effective. It was in writing. It set forth the amount of the rent before and after the proposed increase.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
291 A.2d 389, 119 N.J. Super. 322, 1972 N.J. Super. LEXIS 688, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/palisade-west-associates-v-aranow-usdistct-1972.