Sultan v. Herman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sultan v. Herman

17 A.D.2d 781, 232 N.Y.S.2d 671, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7782

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

DecidedOctober 9, 1962

StatusPublished

This text of 17 A.D.2d 781 (Sultan 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

Sultan v. Herman, 17 A.D.2d 781, 232 N.Y.S.2d 671, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7782 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on April 6,1962, unanimously reversed on the law, without costs to either party, the determination annulled, and the proceeding remanded. We find no error in the acceptance of the sale price as a basis for computation under the 6% net annual return formula. The record indicates that essential services were being maintained in many of the apartments. We have no reason to reach a contrary finding. However, many of the orders granting individual rental increases were conditional in nature. That is, they provided that if the work specified therein were not done the increases granted would be revoked without further notice. We find no sane[782]*782tion in law for such action where the Administrator finds in fact that essential services are not being maintained at the date of the issuance of the order. Nor, in the view we take, is such order divisible. (See L. 1961, ch. 337; Emergency Housing Rent Control Law, § 4, subd. 4, par. [a], cl. [d]; Matter of Amson, 118 N. Y. S. 2d 639, affd. 281 App. Div. 1026; Matter of Halperin v. Caputa, 10 A D 2d 286.) Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Valente, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.

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

Order, entered on April 6,1962, unanimously reversed on the law, without costs to either party, the determination annulled, and the proceeding remanded. We find no error in the acceptance of the sale price as a basis for computation under the 6% net annual return formula. The record indicates that essential services were being maintained in many of the apartments. We have no reason to reach a contrary finding. However, many of the orders granting individual rental increases were conditional in nature. That is, they provided that if the work specified therein were not done the increases granted would be revoked without further notice. We find no sane[782]*782tion in law for such action where the Administrator finds in fact that essential services are not being maintained at the date of the issuance of the order. Nor, in the view we take, is such order divisible. (See L. 1961, ch. 337; Emergency Housing Rent Control Law, § 4, subd. 4, par. [a], cl. [d]; Matter of Amson, 118 N. Y. S. 2d 639, affd. 281 App. Div. 1026; Matter of Halperin v. Caputa, 10 A D 2d 286.) Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Valente, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.2d 781, 232 N.Y.S.2d 671, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7782, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sultan-v-herman-nyappdiv-1962.