Seedman v. Benenson Realty Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Seedman v. Benenson Realty Co.

185 Misc. 769, 60 N.Y.S.2d 341, 1945 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2674

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedOctober 25, 1945

StatusPublished

This text of 185 Misc. 769 (Seedman v. Benenson Realty Co.) 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

Seedman v. Benenson Realty Co., 185 Misc. 769, 60 N.Y.S.2d 341, 1945 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2674 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum Per Curiam.

While the plaintiff could not recover under the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 because there was no proof of any overcharge as defined by that act (§ 205, subd. [e] ; U. S. Code, tit. 50, Appendix, § 925, subd. [e]) nevertheless she did give proof of a breach of the lease which entitled her to some damages. Subdivision (c) of section 1 of the Rent Regulation for Housing in the New York City [771]*771Defense-Rental Area (8 Fed. Reg. 13914, 13915) provides that provisions of leases not inconsistent with the regulations are enforcible. An improper demand in the complaint did not destroy the right to proper damages on the facts which were uncontradicted.

The judgment should he unanimously reversed on the law and new trial granted, with $30 costs to appellant to abide the event. New trial to be limited to the cause of action for compensatory damages by reason of the claimed breach of the provision of the lease for services.

MacCbate, MoCooey and Steinbrink, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, etc.

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

Memorandum Per Curiam.

While the plaintiff could not recover under the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 because there was no proof of any overcharge as defined by that act (§ 205, subd. [e] ; U. S. Code, tit. 50, Appendix, § 925, subd. [e]) nevertheless she did give proof of a breach of the lease which entitled her to some damages. Subdivision (c) of section 1 of the Rent Regulation for Housing in the New York City [771]*771Defense-Rental Area (8 Fed. Reg. 13914, 13915) provides that provisions of leases not inconsistent with the regulations are enforcible. An improper demand in the complaint did not destroy the right to proper damages on the facts which were uncontradicted.

The judgment should he unanimously reversed on the law and new trial granted, with $30 costs to appellant to abide the event. New trial to be limited to the cause of action for compensatory damages by reason of the claimed breach of the provision of the lease for services.

MacCbate, MoCooey and Steinbrink, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

185 Misc. 769, 60 N.Y.S.2d 341, 1945 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2674, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seedman-v-benenson-realty-co-nyappterm-1945.