2 Sutton Place South Tenants' Corp. v. Heller

CourtNew York City Municipal Court
Writing for the CourtARTHUR A. KLOTZ
Citation220 N.Y.S.2d 249
Parties2 SUTTON PLACE SOUTH TENANTS' CORPORATION and Henry Payson, Plaintiffs, v. Sidney HELLER, Defendant.
Decision Date11 October 1961

Page 249

220 N.Y.S.2d 249
2 SUTTON PLACE SOUTH TENANTS' CORPORATION and Henry Payson, Plaintiffs,
v.
Sidney HELLER, Defendant.
Municipal Court of City of New York, Borough of Manhattan,
Ninth District.
Oct. 11, 1961.

Page 250

M. S. & I. S. Isaacs, New York City, by Murray Schwartz, New York City, of counsel, for plaintiffs.

Elliot W. Isaacson, New York City, for defendant.

ARTHUR A. KLOTZ, Justice.

This is an action to recover the sum of $352.09 representing a balance claimed to be due for rent for Apartment 10-f in premises 2 Sutton Place South.

The case was submitted on an agreed statement of facts.

The defendant occupied the subject apartment for many years prior to October 1, 1957, and until December 31, 1959, as a statutory tenant.

In October, 1957, the corporate plaintiff, then the owner of the property, filed an application with the Rent Commission requesting an increase in the maximum legal rents of the tenants, including the defendant here, pursuant to Section 33, Subdivision 5, of the Rent Regulations, McK.Unconsol.Laws Appendix. The proceedings for a rent increase were protracted. Eventually, an order was made by the Rent Commission on August 1, 1960, increasing the maximum legal rent for the apartment occupied by the defendant from $266.15 per month to $272.38 per month effective December 30, 1957.

A second order was made by the Rent Commission on August 31, 1960, increasing the maximum legal rent from $272.38 per month to $286.35 per month effective October 13, 1958.

The question presented for determination is whether a statutory tenant is liable for retroactive increases in rent pursuant to a Rent Commission order for the Period for which such tenant was in possession but after such tenant removes from the premises.

I think yes. A statutory tenancy is a relationship under compulsion of law whereby a landlord cannot charge more than the maximum allowable rent. A tenant who takes advantage of such a statutory relationship must also shoulder the liabilities of such a tenancy. One of these is to pay an allowable retroactive rent increase. This liability to pay a retroactive increase for the period for which a tenant remains in possession cannot be affected by the tenant moving out before the order is handed down by the Rent Commission. The acceptance of a lesser rent while a determination of the amount of liability was pending before the Rent Commission does not constitute a waiver by the landlord of his right to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT