Eaton v. New York City Conciliation and Appeals Bd.
| Decision Date | 17 June 1982 |
| Citation | 437 N.E.2d 1115,452 N.Y.S.2d 358,56 N.Y.2d 340 |
| Parties | , 437 N.E.2d 1115 Barbara H. EATON, Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY CONCILIATION AND APPEALS BOARD et al., Respondents. Tenants' Association of St. John's Colony, Intervenor-Appellant. Eleanor NESBITT, Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY CONCILIATION AND APPEALS BOARD et al., Respondents. Tenants' Association of St. John's Colony, Intervenor-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The question presented on these appeals is whether residential apartments owned and operated by a religious institution and rented to the general public are exempt from the rent stabilization laws. The New York City Conciliation and Appeals Board has determined that the apartments are exempt. In separate article 78 proceedings brought by tenants of the subject apartments, the Supreme Court vacated the determinations but the Appellate Division reversed, 85 A.D.2d 581, 445 N.Y.S.2d 457 and confirmed the determinations. The tenants now appeal to this court.
Respondent, St. John's in the Village, is a religious institution responsible for the operation of the St. John's Episcopal Church in New York City. It also owns and operates as landlord approximately 60 residential apartments in Greenwich Village. These apartments were originally subject to the Rent Stabilization Law of 1969 but were decontrolled pursuant to the vacancy decontrol law (L.1971, ch. 371).
Petitioners Eleanor Nesbitt and Barbara Eaton assumed occupancy of their apartments in August, 1972 and August, 1974 respectively. Thereafter, each entered into subsequent renewal leases at rents permitted under the rent stabilization guidelines authorized by the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974 (L.1974, ch. 576, § 4). The act provided, with certain exceptions, that apartments previously vacancy decontrolled were to be restored to rent stabilization. In 1979, respondent informed its tenants that the apartments were not subject to rent stabilization. It was respondents' position that as a religious institution operated exclusively for charitable purposes on a nonprofit basis, its rental units were exempted from rent stabilization as authorized by section 5 (subd. a, par. ) of the Emergency Tenant Protection Act. This section specifically exempts from rent stabilization: "housing accommodations owned or operated by a hospital, convent, monastery, asylum, public institution or college or school dormitory or any institution operated exclusively for charitable or educational purposes on a non-profit basis".
When respondent insisted that its tenants enter into new leases at rents higher than those permitted by rent stabilization, petitioners filed separate complaints with the New York City Conciliation and Appeals Board (CAB). CAB dismissed petitioners' complaints holding that the dwelling units were exempt from rent regulation and control in that respondent operated the subject premises exclusively for charitable purposes on a nonprofit basis in accordance with section 5 (subd. a, par. ) of the act.
The petitioners then commenced separate article 78 proceedings seeking an annulment of CAB's determinations and an award of attorneys' fees pursuant to section 234 of the Real Property Law. Special Term reversed on the ground that the section in question specifies "monastery" or "convent" and not religious institutions generally.
The Appellate Division modified on the law by reversing the judgments insofar as they annulled CAB's determination. The court found that binding precedents recognize a degree of interchangeability between the terms "religious" and "charitable" and that the statute as interpreted suffered from no constitutional infirmity. The court also held that petitioners' claims for attorneys' fees were properly denied. We now reverse the Appellate Division.
The petitioner tenants argue on this appeal that section 5 (subd. a, par. ) does not specifically exempt religious institutions from rent stabilization and that such an exemption would violate the establishment clause of the Constitution. They further contend that respondent's failure to offer renewal leases at rent-stabilized terms constitutes a failure to perform a covenant or agreement under the lease entitling them to recover attorneys' fees in accordance with section 234 of the Real Property Law.
It is a fundamental principle of statutory...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Empire State Chapter of Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. Smith
...and should be construed in such a manner that its constitutionality may be upheld ( see Eaton v. New York City Conciliation & Appeals Bd., 56 N.Y.2d 340, 346, 452 N.Y.S.2d 358, 437 N.E.2d 1115). “Where the language of a statute is susceptible of two constructions, the courts will adopt that......
-
Cfcu Community Credit Union v. Hayward
...and should be construed in such a manner as to uphold its constitutionality." Eaton v. N. Y. City Conciliation & Appeals Bd., 56 N.Y.2d 340, 346, 452 N.Y.S.2d 358, 437 N.E.2d 1115 (1982). Notwithstanding our great esteem for the New York Court of Appeals, this Court is not bound by its view......
-
Eric M. Berman, P.C. v. City of N.Y.
...this court is bound ‘to give effect to the plain meaning of the words used’ ”], quoting Eaton v. New York City Conciliation & Appeals Bd., 56 N.Y.2d 340, 345, 452 N.Y.S.2d 358, 437 N.E.2d 1115 [1982] ).Furthermore, as the Second Circuit noted,“Local Law 15 could be read as not providing a c......
-
State v. John S.
...Hernandez v. Barrios–Paoli, 93 N.Y.2d 781, 788, 698 N.Y.S.2d 590, 720 N.E.2d 866 [1999] ; Eaton v. New York City Conciliation & Appeals Bd., 56 N.Y.2d 340, 346, 452 N.Y.S.2d 358, 437 N.E.2d 1115 [1982] ).The records Supreme Court unsealed here—indictments, pre-sentence reports, police repor......