Skyline Gardens, Inc. v. McGarry, A--301
| Decision Date | 17 October 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. A--301,A--301 |
| Citation | 22 N.J.Super. 193,91 A.2d 621 |
| Parties | SKYLINE GARDENS, Inc. v. McGARRY. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Paul N. Belmont, Newark, argued the cause for the appellant (George I. Marcus, Hackensack, attorney; Walter D. Van Riper, Newark, on the brief).
Hyman W. Rosenthal, Paterson, argued the cause for the respondent (Milton Schleider, Paterson, attorney).
Before Judges FREUND, STANTON and CONLON.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
CONLON, J.C.C. (temporarily assigned).
The plaintiff, owner of an apartment house in North Arlington, New Jersey, brought this action in the Bergen County District Court for the recovery of rent in the amount of $36. Plaintiff claims the aggregate of $12 per month for the months of October, November and December 1951, which represents the difference between the amount of $60 which the defendant paid and $72 which was the amount to which the rent ceiling had been raised by the Office of Rent Stabilization as of August 29, 1951. The action has significance since the plaintiff instituted approximately 65 similar suits against other tenants in the apartment house, and it was stipulated in the court below that the plaintiff and all of the defendants would be bound by the disposition of this action.
The pertinent facts are not in dispute. Defendant was a month-to-month tenant paying $60 per month. On August 29, 1951 the Federal Area Rent Director, acting on an application of the plaintiff landlord, fixed the maximum rent for defendant's apartment at $72 per month and sent a notice to that effect to the defendant. On August 30, 1951 the plaintiff caused to be served on the defendant the following notice:
'This is to advise you that the rent for your apartment, which you occupy, has been increased from $60.00 to $72.00 per month.
'You are therefore notified that beginning October 1, 1951, you will be required to pay the sum of $72. per month.
'Please consider this your 30-day notice according to law.'
On October 17, 1951 an order was issued by the Area Rent Director revoking the order of August 29, 1951, but on November 28, 1951, the Director of Rent Stabilization, to whom an appeal had been taken by the plaintiff, issued an order revoking the order of October 17, 1951 and reinstating the order of August 29, 1951. It is not disputed that the latter two orders were retroactive. The defendant paid $60 for each of the months of October, November and December 1951, but refused to pay the increase. The plaintiff accepted the payments on account and now sues to recover the increase in rent for those three months. The trial court entered judgment for the defendant and filed a memorandum which clearly analyzed the principles involved and the reasons for his conclusion.
The sole question is whether or not the notice of August...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harry's Village, Inc. v. Egg Harbor Tp.
...one of the parties. See Stamboulos v. McKee, 134 N.J.Super. 567, 570-71, 342 A.2d 529 (App.Div.1975); Skyline Gardens, Inc. v. McGarry, 22 N.J.Super. 193, 196, 91 A.2d 621 (App.Div.1952). Either party may terminate a monthly tenancy by serving upon the other a month's notice to quit. Steffe......
-
Goldberg v. East Orange Rent Control Bd.
...to fix the actual rent to be charged. The landlord was free to set rents within the legal limit. Skyline Gardens, Inc. v. McGarry, 22 N.J.Super. 193, 91 A.2d 621 (App.Div.1952). I therefore find the action of the board limiting the maximum increase to $60 was arbitrary and not related to th......
-
Bhar Realty Corp. v. Becker, A--75
...51 A.2d 548 (Sup.Ct.1947); Hertzberg v. Siegel, 8 N.J.Super. 226, 229, 73 A.2d 840 (App.Div.1950); Skyline Gardens, Inc., v. McGarry, 22 N.J.Super. 193, 195--196, 91 A.2d 621 (App.Div.1952); 18 N.J.Practice, § 1538, p. 106. We emphasize the distinctions between the aforesaid 'notice to quit......
-
De Foe v. Weaver Bros., 1398.
...decision. The decisions most strongly relied on by her are Hertzberg v. Siegel, 8 N.J.Super. 226, 73 A.2d 840; Skyline Gardens, Inc., v. McGarry, 22 N.J.Super. 193, 91 A.2d 621; Abbenante v. Giampietro, 75 R.I. 349, 66 A.2d 501; Giampaolo v. Anatra, 191 Misc. 999, 80 N.Y.S.2d 140, affirmed ......