San Marco Realty Corp. v. Spevack

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

San Marco Realty Corp. v. Spevack

203 Misc. 634, 124 N.Y.S.2d 56, 1953 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2088

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMarch 26, 1953

StatusPublished

This text of 203 Misc. 634 (San Marco Realty Corp. v. Spevack) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

San Marco Realty Corp. v. Spevack, 203 Misc. 634, 124 N.Y.S.2d 56, 1953 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2088 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The order of the Temporary State Housing Bent Commission made pursuant to subdivision 1 of section 33 of the State Bent and Eviction Begulations merely fixed a new maximum rent for the housing accommodations in question; it did not and could not alter the rent reserved in the written two-year lease which was still subsisting. Although the tenant consented to the landlord’s application to increase the maximum rent for the said dwelling space, he did not consent to any modification of the terms of the lease.

The final order and judgment should be unanimously reversed upon the law and facts, with $30 costs to tenant, and petition dismissed, with appropriate costs in the cou:pt below.

Walsh, Cuee and Ughetta, JJ., concur.

Final order and judgment reversed, etc.

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

Per Curiam.

The order of the Temporary State Housing Bent Commission made pursuant to subdivision 1 of section 33 of the State Bent and Eviction Begulations merely fixed a new maximum rent for the housing accommodations in question; it did not and could not alter the rent reserved in the written two-year lease which was still subsisting. Although the tenant consented to the landlord’s application to increase the maximum rent for the said dwelling space, he did not consent to any modification of the terms of the lease.

The final order and judgment should be unanimously reversed upon the law and facts, with $30 costs to tenant, and petition dismissed, with appropriate costs in the cou:pt below.

Walsh, Cuee and Ughetta, JJ., concur.

Final order and judgment reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 Misc. 634, 124 N.Y.S.2d 56, 1953 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2088, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/san-marco-realty-corp-v-spevack-nyappterm-1953.