Teeval Co. v. McGoldrick

New York Court of Appeals

Teeval Co. v. McGoldrick

110 N.E.2d 900, 304 N.Y. 981, 1953 N.Y. LEXIS 1138

New York Court of Appeals·Decided January 21, 1953·Published

Opinion

Motion to amend remittitur granted. Return of remittitur requested and, when returned, it will be amended by adding thereto the following: Upon the appeal herein there were presented and necessarily passed upon questions under the Constitution of the United States; viz., whether the Residential Rent Law of the State of New York (as amd. by L. 1951, ch. 443) deprived plaintiff of due process guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments in limiting the net annual return to be earned by the plaintiff to 4% of the assessed valuation of the property. The Court of Appeals held that the rights of the plaintiff under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States had not been violated or denied. [See 304 N. Y. 859.]

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

Motion to amend remittitur granted. Return of remittitur requested and, when returned, it will be amended by adding thereto the following: Upon the appeal herein there were presented and necessarily passed upon questions under the Constitution of the United States; viz., whether the Residential Rent Law of the State of New York (as amd. by L. 1951, ch. 443) deprived plaintiff of due process guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments in limiting the net annual return to be earned by the plaintiff to 4% of the assessed valuation of the property. The Court of Appeals held that the rights of the plaintiff under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States had not been violated or denied. [See 304 N. Y. 859.]

Teeval Co. v. McGoldrick, 110 N.E.2d 900, 304 N.Y. 981, 1953 N.Y. LEXIS 1138 (N.Y. 1953).

Pincite

110 N.E.2d 900 (Teeval Co. v. McGoldrick) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related