From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Baum v. Crosfield

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 19, 1952
279 App. Div. 1088 (N.Y. App. Div. 1952)

Opinion

May 19, 1952.

Present — Nolan, P.J., Carswell, Johnston, MacCrate and Schmidt, JJ. [ 280 App. Div. 805.]


On September 2, 1950, defendant landlord leased to plaintiff tenant an apartment, which the landlord then furnished, at a rental of $25 a week. The maximum rental of the apartment, theretofore unfurnished, was $40.25 a month. On application by the landlord, the rent administrator issued an order fixing the maximum rent for the apartment furnished at $55 a month, effective January 26, 1951. In this action to recover for the overcharge between September 2, 1950, and January 26, 1951, and for counsel fee, the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Queens, granted judgment to plaintiff for the difference between the $25 a week paid and the $40.25 a month, the maximum rent for the apartment unfurnished, during the period mentioned, and a counsel fee of $150. The Appellate Term modified the judgment by reducing the counsel fee to $100 and, as so modified, affirmed. Order of the Appellate Term unanimously affirmed, with costs. The addition of furniture to an unfurnished apartment does not create a new and different housing accommodation. Therefore, the landlord may not collect more than the established maximum rent for the housing accommodation unfurnished unless and until such an order is issued by the rent administrator. The collection of any amount over the established maximum rent prior to the issuance of any such order by the administrator represents an overcharge.


Summaries of

Baum v. Crosfield

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 19, 1952
279 App. Div. 1088 (N.Y. App. Div. 1952)
Case details for

Baum v. Crosfield

Case Details

Full title:PAULINE BAUM, Respondent, v. HADASSA CROSFIELD, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: May 19, 1952

Citations

279 App. Div. 1088 (N.Y. App. Div. 1952)

Citing Cases

Strunk v. Hayes

Therefore, the landlord may not collect more than the established maximum rent for the housing accommodation…

Laveist v. Roberts

Her own testimony establishes the validity of the tenant's defense of overcharge. The addition of new…