Schonbuch v. Abrams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schonbuch v. Abrams

1 A.D.2d 658, 146 N.Y.S.2d 460, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3849

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

DecidedDecember 13, 1955

StatusPublished

This text of 1 A.D.2d 658 (Schonbuch v. Abrams) 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

Schonbuch v. Abrams, 1 A.D.2d 658, 146 N.Y.S.2d 460, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3849 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the determination of the State Rent Administrator annulled, with costs. The record before the Administrator justified his findings that plans were not filed with the department of housing and buildings and a certificate of occupancy was not obtained and that the accommodations are entirely substandard. Subdivision 4 of section 9 of the State Rent and Eviction Regulations provides, however, that the regulations do not apply to “ housing accommodations created by a change from a non-housing to a housing use on or after February first, nineteen hundred forty-seven”. (See, also, State Residential Rent Law, § 2, subd. 2, par. [g], cl. 1; L. 1946, eh. 274, as amd.) The Administrator was in error in treating the present application as one to decontrol the premises. Here the apartment may not be decontrolled because it is exempt from control (cf. Matter of Fiesta Realty Corp. v. McGoldrick, 284 App. Div. 551, 557, revd. on procedural grounds 308 N. Y. 869). The record discloses that in 1952 the landlord converted the rear portion of a store into the subject apartment and it is, therefore, not subject to control and beyond the jurisdiction of the Administrator. (Matter of Lo Presti v. McGoldrick, 284 App. Div. 827, affd. 308 N. Y. 706; Matter of Kruckel V. McGoldrick, 281 App. Div. 811.) Settle order on notice. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Bastow, Botein and Rabin, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the determination of the State Rent Administrator annulled, with costs. The record before the Administrator justified his findings that plans were not filed with the department of housing and buildings and a certificate of occupancy was not obtained and that the accommodations are entirely substandard. Subdivision 4 of section 9 of the State Rent and Eviction Regulations provides, however, that the regulations do not apply to “ housing accommodations created by a change from a non-housing to a housing use on or after February first, nineteen hundred forty-seven”. (See, also, State Residential Rent Law, § 2, subd. 2, par. [g], cl. 1; L. 1946, eh. 274, as amd.) The Administrator was in error in treating the present application as one to decontrol the premises. Here the apartment may not be decontrolled because it is exempt from control (cf. Matter of Fiesta Realty Corp. v. McGoldrick, 284 App. Div. 551, 557, revd. on procedural grounds 308 N. Y. 869). The record discloses that in 1952 the landlord converted the rear portion of a store into the subject apartment and it is, therefore, not subject to control and beyond the jurisdiction of the Administrator. (Matter of Lo Presti v. McGoldrick, 284 App. Div. 827, affd. 308 N. Y. 706; Matter of Kruckel V. McGoldrick, 281 App. Div. 811.) Settle order on notice. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Bastow, Botein and Rabin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.2d 658, 146 N.Y.S.2d 460, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3849, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schonbuch-v-abrams-nyappdiv-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack