Ramrod Realty Management Co. v. Herman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ramrod Realty Management Co. v. Herman

17 A.D.2d 654, 239 N.Y.S.2d 1022, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8583

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

DecidedJuly 9, 1962

StatusPublished

This text of 17 A.D.2d 654 (Ramrod Realty Management Co. v. Herman) 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

Ramrod Realty Management Co. v. Herman, 17 A.D.2d 654, 239 N.Y.S.2d 1022, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8583 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, to annul the State Rent Administrator’s determination which denied an application by the petitioner (the owner of the subject property), pursuant to the State Rent and Eviction Regulations (§ 33, subd. 5), for a rent increase based upon the purchase price of the property, petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November 6, 1961, which denied its petition and dismissed the proceeding. Order reversed on the law, with costs, determination annulled, and proceeding remitted to the State Rent Administrator for further, hearings at which he should consider: (a) bona fide mortgage commitments by prospective lenders; and (b) the offer to submit comparable properties and impartial appraisals of the subject property (Matter of Weiss v. Herman, 16 A D 2d 432; Matter of R. & S. Realty Co. v. Herman, 16 A D 2d 954). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, to annul the State Rent Administrator’s determination which denied an application by the petitioner (the owner of the subject property), pursuant to the State Rent and Eviction Regulations (§ 33, subd. 5), for a rent increase based upon the purchase price of the property, petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November 6, 1961, which denied its petition and dismissed the proceeding. Order reversed on the law, with costs, determination annulled, and proceeding remitted to the State Rent Administrator for further, hearings at which he should consider: (a) bona fide mortgage commitments by prospective lenders; and (b) the offer to submit comparable properties and impartial appraisals of the subject property (Matter of Weiss v. Herman, 16 A D 2d 432; Matter of R. & S. Realty Co. v. Herman, 16 A D 2d 954). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.2d 654, 239 N.Y.S.2d 1022, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8583, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramrod-realty-management-co-v-herman-nyappdiv-1962.