Rauch v. Mossberg Garage Corp.

92 N.E.2d 871, 301 N.Y. 38
New York Court of Appeals·Decided May 18, 1950·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The Commercial Rent Law (L. 1945, ch. 3, as amd.) was not" designed to, and does not, regulate the relationship between the operator of a public garage and one who has his automobile stored or garaged therein — at least where, as in the present case, no definite space is assigned to him. As is clear from its language, its history and its purpose, the statute extends its protective coverage only to those who, as tenants, either possess or occupy a specified and measurable area of commercial real estate. Obviously, one who simply garages a car in a public garage is not a tenant within the meaning of that statute.

The judgment of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Froessel, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Rauch v. Mossberg Garage Corp., 92 N.E.2d 871, 301 N.Y. 38 (N.Y. 1950).

92 N.E.2d 871 (Rauch v. Mossberg Garage Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Review Co. v. General Bronze Corp.
19 A.D.2d 550 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1963)
People v. Raker
12 A.D.2d 549 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1960)