Parkchester Management Corp. v. Rent Stabilization Ass'n of New York, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Parkchester Management Corp. v. Rent Stabilization Ass'n of New York, Inc.

56 A.D.2d 402, 392 N.Y.S.2d 634, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10449

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 24, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 56 A.D.2d 402 (Parkchester Management Corp. v. Rent Stabilization Ass'n of New York, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Parkchester Management Corp. v. Rent Stabilization Ass'n of New York, Inc., 56 A.D.2d 402, 392 N.Y.S.2d 634, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10449 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam.

The leases in question were executed prior to May 29, 1974. They were renewal leases for a period of 31 months (extended by the Conciliation and Appeals Board [CAB] for an additional five-month period) and provided for graduated rent increases. CAB’s determination required that during the extension period the rent be reduced to the "averaged rent” in the lease and that any renewal commencing thereafter be based upon such reduced averaged rent. It does not clearly appear that the six leases involved herein contravened section 35B of the Rent Stabilization Association Code, Moreover, the Rent Stabilization Association (RSA), which adopted the section, later sought unsuccessfully to amend it to make clear that it was not intended to apply to leases executed prior to May 29, 1974. As construed and applied, section 35B exceeds the powers granted. The graduated increases were found not to be unconscionable, and the total rents when averaged were not unconscionable. However, it was concluded that an unconscionable result would be reached if the final rent established in the leases were used as the basis for computing the renewal leases. In our view this conclusion regarding the projected increases is unsupportable. Such rent would not appear to be unreasonably high nor at variance with comparable fair market standards. The result reached below disregards the apparent intent of RSA and constitutes an arbitrary application of rental adjustments to tenants already in occupancy whose leases were executed prior to July 1, 1974, the effective date of the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974 (L 1974, ch 576, § 4). (Emergency Tenant Protection Act, §§ 4; 6, subd a.)

Judgment entered in the Supreme Court, New York County, December 17, 1976 (Hughes, J.) should be reversed on the law and the petition granted, without costs.

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

Per Curiam.

The leases in question were executed prior to May 29, 1974. They were renewal leases for a period of 31 months (extended by the Conciliation and Appeals Board [CAB] for an additional five-month period) and provided for graduated rent increases. CAB’s determination required that during the extension period the rent be reduced to the "averaged rent” in the lease and that any renewal commencing thereafter be based upon such reduced averaged rent. It does not clearly appear that the six leases involved herein contravened section 35B of the Rent Stabilization Association Code, Moreover, the Rent Stabilization Association (RSA), which adopted the section, later sought unsuccessfully to amend it to make clear that it was not intended to apply to leases executed prior to May 29, 1974. As construed and applied, section 35B exceeds the powers granted. The graduated increases were found not to be unconscionable, and the total rents when averaged were not unconscionable. However, it was concluded that an unconscionable result would be reached if the final rent established in the leases were used as the basis for computing the renewal leases. In our view this conclusion regarding the projected increases is unsupportable. Such rent would not appear to be unreasonably high nor at variance with comparable fair market standards. The result reached below disregards the apparent intent of RSA and constitutes an arbitrary application of rental adjustments to tenants already in occupancy whose leases were executed prior to July 1, 1974, the effective date of the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974 (L 1974, ch 576, § 4). (Emergency Tenant Protection Act, §§ 4; 6, subd a.)

Judgment entered in the Supreme Court, New York County, December 17, 1976 (Hughes, J.) should be reversed on the law and the petition granted, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 A.D.2d 402, 392 N.Y.S.2d 634, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10449, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parkchester-management-corp-v-rent-stabilization-assn-of-new-york-inc-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack