WMCA, Inc. v. Blockfront Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

WMCA, Inc. v. Blockfront Realty Corp.

272 A.D.2d 800

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

DecidedMay 16, 1947

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 800 (WMCA, Inc. v. Blockfront Realty Corp.) 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

WMCA, Inc. v. Blockfront Realty Corp., 272 A.D.2d 800 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

Defendant-appellant is a subtenant of the entire building. In turn, it sublets to undertenants all of the rental space in the building, retaining actual possession only of the hallways, elevators, stairs and other parts of the building necessary to its operation. Defendant-appellant is engaged in no other business than operating this building, and prior to the expiration of its own lease it made a profit by charging its undertenants more than it had contracted to pay to the head tenant. This condition it desires to continue under the Emergency Rent Laws which were not enacted for the benefit of persons who are merely in constructive possession of rental space in commercial buildings. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Present — Martin, P. J., Cohn, Callahan, Peek and Van Voorhis, JJ. [See post, p. 873.]

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

Defendant-appellant is a subtenant of the entire building. In turn, it sublets to undertenants all of the rental space in the building, retaining actual possession only of the hallways, elevators, stairs and other parts of the building necessary to its operation. Defendant-appellant is engaged in no other business than operating this building, and prior to the expiration of its own lease it made a profit by charging its undertenants more than it had contracted to pay to the head tenant. This condition it desires to continue under the Emergency Rent Laws which were not enacted for the benefit of persons who are merely in constructive possession of rental space in commercial buildings. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Present — Martin, P. J., Cohn, Callahan, Peek and Van Voorhis, JJ. [See post, p. 873.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 800, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wmca-inc-v-blockfront-realty-corp-nyappdiv-1947.