Adamec v. Post

• Decision Date: 09 March 1937
• Citation: 7 N.E.2d 120,273 N.Y. 250
• Parties: ADAMEC v. POST, Tenement House Com'r.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

273 N.Y. 250

7 N.E.2d 120

ADAMEC

v.POST, Tenement House Com'r.

Court of Appeals of New York.

March 9, 1937.

Appeal from Special Term.

Proceeding for injunction by John B. Adamec against Langdon W. Post, as Tenement House Commissioner of the City of New York. From a judgment of Special Term granting a motion to dismiss the complaint, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed. Theodore Ornstein, Edward Elman, and Henry H. Silverman, all of New York City, for appellant.

Paul Windels, Corp. Counsel, of New York City (William S. Gaud, Jr., Paxton Blair, and Francis J. Bloustein, all of New York City, of counsel), for respondent.

John J. Bennett, Jr., Atty. Gen. (Henry Epstein, of Albany, and John C. Crary, Jr., of counsel), for the State.

LEHMAN, Judge.

The plaintiff is the owner of a plot of land in the city of New York, twenty-five feet in width and one hundred feet in depth, with a four-story brick building erected upon it prior to 1901, and still used as an apartment or tenement house. It contains eight five-room apartments, two on each floor, and also two two-room apartments in the basement.

Under the provisions of the Multiple Dwelling Law (Consol.Laws, c. 61-a; Laws 1929, c. 713, as amended by Laws 1930, cc. 839, 840, 841, 842, 843, 844, 845, 846, 847, 861, 863, 864; Laws 1931, cc. 129, 213, 228, 229, 681, 765; Laws 1932, c. 626; Laws 1933, cc. 210 and 398; Laws 1934, cc. 526, 527, 528, 529, 530, 531, 532, 552, 719, 742; and Laws 1935, cc. 335, 336, 863, 864, 865, 866, 904 and 941), buildings used as multiple dwellings, though erected prior to 1901 in accordance with the requirements of the laws of the State which were then in force, must now comply with new requirements and higher standards enacted by the Legislature, for the protection of the safety and health of those who may live in these houses and, indirectly, of the people of the State. The plaintiff, claiming that the statute as amended is arbitrary and unreasonable and deprives him and others similarly situated of their property without due process of law, has brought this action, praying that the court declare the statute null and void in so far as it applies to buildings erected before 1901 and that an injunction issue against the Tenement House Commissioner restraining him from taking any steps to enforce the statute.

The plaintiff moved at Special Term for an injunction pendente lite. The defendant moved for judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that it failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The defendant's motion was granted, and from the judgment of dismissal the plaintiff has appealed directly to this court pursuant to the provisions of the Civil Practice Act, § 588, subd. 3. The scope of the plaintiff's appeal is limited to the constitutional question of the validity of the statute. No procedural question survives. The appellant can succeed in the court only if from the allegations of the complaint the conclusion must be drawn that the legislative command arbitrarily deprives the plaintiff of his property.

The complaint alleges that the plaintiff's building is ‘one of many thousands of similar buildings in the city of New York, commonly known as ‘old law’ tenements, having been constructed prior to January 1st, 1901.' The State has prohibited the use of any building, erected since that time, as a ‘tenement house’ or ‘multiple dwelling’ unless such building complies with requirements exacted and standards prescribed from time to time for the protection of the health and lives of those living there. During the last thirty-five years there have been improvementsin sanitation; new devices have been invented which provide added comfort or safety; noncombustible or slow burning materials have been perfected. During these years, too, there has come a general recognition that dwellings which are unsafe or unsanitary or which fail to provide the amenities essential to decent living may work injury not only to those who live there, but to the general welfare. Economic self interest-the incentive to obtain the higher rentals which might be exacted of those able and willing to pay adequately for increased comfort and safety-would, doubtless, be a force sufficient, even without legislative compulsion, to induce the erection of some buildings which would embody the latest improvements and the most advanced ideas in safety and construction. In steadily descending scale, less conveniences, less space, less light, less air, less safeguards of health and safety, will be provided for lower rentals. At the point where economic self-interest ceases to be a sufficiently potent force for the promotion of the general welfare, or, indeed, becomes a force which may actually injure the general welfare, the Legislature may intervene and require that buildings intended for use as tenement houses or multiple dwellings shall conform to minimum standards which may reasonably be regarded as essential for safe, decent, and sanitary dwelling places.

Conformity to such standards may cause additional expense to owners of land and result in increased rentals and thus cause incidental hardship to tenants who have small incomes. Nevertheless the Legislature has power to prohibit the use of land for the erection of buildings, to be used for housing, which provide accommodations below such standards. The power of the State to place reasonable restrictions upon the use of property for the promotion of the general welfare is no longer subject to challenge and regulations governing the erection or use of buildings as multiple dwellings which are reasonably calculated to safeguard the public health and safety constitute a proper exercise of that power. Cf. Adler v. Deegan, 251 N.Y. 467, 167 N.E. 705.

This court has said that there is no difference of principle but ‘only of circumstance’ between a legislative enactment of ‘conditions upon complying with which the owner might be permitted to erect a structure within the limits of a city or village or for certain purposes, and the enactment of provisions which would necessitate the alteration of structures already in existence.’ In both cases the enactment is an attempted exercise of the police power ‘in order to secure the general comfort and health of the public’ and in both cases the use of his property by the owner is ‘circumscribed and limited, what might otherwise be called his rights are plainly interfered with, and the justification therefor can only be found in this police power.’ Health Department of City of New York v. Rector, etc., of Trinity Church, 145 N.Y. 32, 45,39 N.E. 833, 837,27 L.R.A. 710, 45 Am.St.Rep. 579.

Difference ‘of circumstance’ may, nevertheless, be an important factor in determining whether a particular regulation is reasonable. A small additional cost in erecting a new building in conformity with a regulation calculated to ‘secure the general comfort and health of the public’ even in a matter, perhaps, not of vital importance, may be reasonably justified by the result to be attained, while the cost of alteration of an old building to conform to such a regulation may be too great to be reasonably required for a doubtful or slight public benefit. Then, too, costly alterations may be economically impractical for old buildings, perhaps deteriorated by years of use, perhaps obsolescent, perhaps in neighborhoods no longer suitable for dwellings. In such case a requirement of such alterations may result in discontinuance of the use of such buildings with consequent loss of revenue to the owner of the building, and perhaps hardship to the tenants who must move out and find other quarters, where, in...