Wiener v. Gabel
| Decision Date | 25 March 1963 |
| Citation | 239 N.Y.S.2d 48,18 A.D.2d 1025 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Ralph H. WIENER and Eleanor O. Wiener, etc., Petitioners-Respondents, v. Hortense W. GABEL, City Rent and Rehabilitation Administrator, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Beatrice Shainswit, New York City, for appellant.
Ralph H. Wiener, New Rochelle, for respondents; William E. Rosen, New York City, of counsel.
Before BELDOCK, P. J., and KLEINFELD, CHRIST, BRENNAN and RABIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, to annual a determination of the City Rent Administrator which denied the protest of the petitioners-landlords and which affirmed an order of the Local Rent Administrator fixing the maximum monthly rent of an apartment at $140.78, including an increase of seventy-five cents for an additional service, which had been previously granted by an order of the Local Rent Administrator, dated August 25, 1961, the City Rent Administrator appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated August 17, 1962, which granted the petition, set aside the order of the Local Rent Administrator and directed her (the City Rent Administrator) to reinstate the Local Rent Administrator's order of August 25, 1961 fixing the rent of the apartment at $154.75 a month.
Order appealed from reversed on the law and the facts, without costs; determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed. Findings of fact contained or implicit in the decision of the Special Term which may be inconsistent herewith are reversed, and new findings are made as indicated herein.
One of the landlords, (who is an attorney), the tenant and the tenant's attorney appeared at a conference before the Local Rent Administrator or his representative, who, in resolving an issue of fact, found either that the tenant did not know the meaning of a statement signed by her on March 10, 1961 or that she did not intend such statement to constitute a consent by her to an increase over the legal maximum rent in effect on that date. The City Rent Administrator stated that the record 'indicates that the tenant, in signing the statement of March 10, 1961, did not know that it was an instrument expressing her intent to voluntarily increase the maximum rent of the subject apartment.'
In a proceeding such as this the scope of judicial review is limited to a determination as to whether there was a reasonable basis for the action of the City...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Thomas' Estate, In re
-
Sanchez v. Popolizio
... ... Boland, 282 N.Y. 256, 267, 26 N.E.2d 247; Matter of Wiener v. Gabel, 18 A.D.2d 1025, 239 N.Y.S.2d 48). Additionally, the penalty imposed by the administrative body will not be set aside by this court unless ... ...
-
Errera v. Quinones
... ... Board of Coop. Educational Servs. Third Supervisory Dist., Suffolk County, 60 N.Y.2d 979, 471 N.Y.S.2d 257, 459 N.E.2d 482; Matter of Wiener v. Gabel, 18 A.D.2d 1025, 1026, 239 N.Y.S.2d 44). As the complainant's testimony was not incredible as a matter of law, and was sufficient by ... ...
-
Racoosin v. Gabel
... ... Judgment affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, there was substantial evidence to support the determination of the City Rent Administrator. In the circumstances, it may not be disturbed by the courts (Matter of Wiener v. Gabel, 18 A.D.2d 1025, 239 N.Y.S.2d 48; Matter of Stratford Leasing Corp. v. Gabel, 17 A.D.2d 332, 235 N.Y.S.2d 143, affd., 13 N.Y.2d 607, 240 N.Y.S.2d 363, 190 N.E.2d 649) ... UGHETTA, Acting P. J., and CHRIST, ... ...