Tucson Realty Corp. v. Temporary State Housing Rent Commission

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tucson Realty Corp. v. Temporary State Housing Rent Commission

19 A.D.2d 516, 240 N.Y.S.2d 39, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3809

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

DecidedMay 7, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 19 A.D.2d 516 (Tucson Realty Corp. v. Temporary State Housing Rent Commission) 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

Tucson Realty Corp. v. Temporary State Housing Rent Commission, 19 A.D.2d 516, 240 N.Y.S.2d 39, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3809 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on December 11, 1962, unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to respondent. The proceeding is dismissed on the merits. Chapter 21 of the Laws of 1962 was effective to cancel the rent increases which were granted on September 1, 1961 to petitioner by the local rent office on basis of 1961 equalization rates. We reject, as inconsistent with the terms of the statute, construed as a whole and in light of legislative background, the petitioner’s contention that the statute should be restricted in its application to cancel increases in those cases where no increases would have been due if the 1954 equalization rate had been used. ('See L. 1962, eh. 21, §§ 4, 5; Matter of Solmar Realty Corp. v. Temporary [517]*517State Sousing Rent Comm., 18 A D 2d 705; Capway Realty Corp. V. Temporary State Sousing Rent Comm., 18 A D 2d 687; Matter of Feinbart Realty Corp. v. Serman, 18 A D 2d 837.) The statute is constitutional in its application here. (See Capway Realty Corp. v. Temporary State Sousing Rent Comm., supra; Teeval Co. v. Stern, 301 N. Y. 346; I. L. F. T. Co. v. Temporary State Sousing Rent Comm., 11 N Y 2d 259; Bucho Solding Co. V. Temporary State Sousing Rent Comm., 11 N Y 2d 469.) Concur — ■ McNally, J. P., Stevens, Eager, Steuer and Bergan, JJ.

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

Order, entered on December 11, 1962, unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to respondent. The proceeding is dismissed on the merits. Chapter 21 of the Laws of 1962 was effective to cancel the rent increases which were granted on September 1, 1961 to petitioner by the local rent office on basis of 1961 equalization rates. We reject, as inconsistent with the terms of the statute, construed as a whole and in light of legislative background, the petitioner’s contention that the statute should be restricted in its application to cancel increases in those cases where no increases would have been due if the 1954 equalization rate had been used. ('See L. 1962, eh. 21, §§ 4, 5; Matter of Solmar Realty Corp. v. Temporary [517]*517State Sousing Rent Comm., 18 A D 2d 705; Capway Realty Corp. V. Temporary State Sousing Rent Comm., 18 A D 2d 687; Matter of Feinbart Realty Corp. v. Serman, 18 A D 2d 837.) The statute is constitutional in its application here. (See Capway Realty Corp. v. Temporary State Sousing Rent Comm., supra; Teeval Co. v. Stern, 301 N. Y. 346; I. L. F. T. Co. v. Temporary State Sousing Rent Comm., 11 N Y 2d 259; Bucho Solding Co. V. Temporary State Sousing Rent Comm., 11 N Y 2d 469.) Concur — ■ McNally, J. P., Stevens, Eager, Steuer and Bergan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.2d 516, 240 N.Y.S.2d 39, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3809, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tucson-realty-corp-v-temporary-state-housing-rent-commission-nyappdiv-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack