7 Misc. 2d 449 | N.Y. Sup. Ct. | 1957
An apartment was occupied on March 1, 1950 by a tenant and his wife. Then their daughter, son-in-law, and grandchild moved in. Petitioner applied for an increase
The above is not a criticism of the action of the Administrator in this case because in the building in question he has been affirmed on a similar ruling (Matter of Grant-Morris Mgt. Corp. v. Weaver, N. Y. L. J., March 13, 1956, p. 6, col. 4). Perhaps the contrary holdings of the Administrator were not called to the court’s attention. Regardless, it is unfortunate that I cannot agree with the basis of the decision. It was there held that the matter was discretionary in view of the continued scarcity of accommodations. This would be both salutary and pertinent if the question involved were whether the young couple involved was entitled to occupy the apartment, but the question is whether they are entitled to occupy it rent free, and on that question the condition of the rental market has no bearing.
The motion, pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Act to review and annul the order of respondent in denying petitioner’s application for an increase in rent, is granted.