Zehil v. Weaver

Citation182 N.Y.S.2d 111,15 Misc.2d 436
PartiesZEHIL v. WEAVER.
Decision Date29 October 1958
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (New York)

Maurice Guild, Brooklyn, for petitioner.

Nathan Heller, New York City, for respondent.

JAMES S. BROWN, Jr., Justice.

Proceeding to review the determination of respondent denying a certificate of eviction.

Petitioner, his wife and their son-in-law purchased the subject six-family dwelling in April 1957. At the time of purchase the son-in-law and his wife moved into a vacant apartment therein. Petitioner, his wife and their two sons live elsewhere in a five-room apartment.

Petitioner filed an application for the tenant's four-room apartment on the ground that his daughter was pregnant, that the mother wanted to be near her daughter to take care of her, that the premises did not contain a janitor and that the son-in-law and daughter both worked and could not properly care for the property. The application was denied for failure of petitioner to establish an immediate and compelling necessity.

A protest was filed which, in addition to the grounds set forth in the application, alleged that the parties had purchased the premises not for investment but for a home and that it is not possible to maintain the services of a janitor because the expenses of the property exceed the income. The protest was denied, respondent finding that the applicants were properly housed, that they had failed to show inability to obtain the services of a visiting superintendent and that petitioner had failed to establish an immediate and compelling necessity.

Upon this application, petitioner challenges the constitutionality of Section 55 of the regulations of the Temporary State Housing Rent Commission which requires a finding of an immediate and compelling necessity in this situation before a certificate may be issued. Petitioner attacks the distinction made between multiple dwellings and one or two family homes. This distinction has been accepted (Wisotsky v. McGoldrick, 279 App.Div. 1011, 111 N.Y.S.2d 609, affirmed 304 N.Y. 619, 107 N.E.2d 95). In passing upon validity of legislation alleged to violate equal protection clauses because said legislation operates solely with respect to particular classes of property, the test is whether the classification has a reasonable basis or not, bearing in mind the subjectmatter and object of the legislation. U.S.C.A.Const. Amends. 5, 14; Const. art. 1, §§ 6, 7, 10, 11. New York State Commission Against...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Sabato v. Sabato
    • United States
    • Superior Court of New Jersey
    • June 13, 1975
    ...N.E.2d 523 (Ct.App.1957); People ex rel. McGoldrick v. D'Allura, 197 Misc. 806, 99 N.Y.S.2d 278 (Sup.Ct.1950); Zehil v. Weaver, 15 Misc.2d 436, 182 N.Y.S.2d 111 (Sup.Ct.1958).) On balance (and concededly in retrospect), it would have been far wiser if the Legislature had squarely dealt with......
  • Jones v. Haridor Realty Corp.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • May 21, 1962
    ...158 A.2d 177; Burks, Jr. v. Poppy Construction Company, 20 Cal.Rptr. 609, 370 P.2d 313 (Sup.Ct.Mar. 26, 1962); Zehil v. Weaver, 15 Misc.2d 436, 182 N.Y.S.2d 111 (Sup.Ct.1958). Primarily, however, appellants' assertion of invalidity rests in the claim that the Law Against Discrimination depr......

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