Kole v. Kousnetz

2 Citing cases

  1. Tudor Arms Apartments v. Shaffer

    191 Md. 342 (Md. 1948)   Cited 20 times
    In Tudor Arms, where this Court was construing the effect of a rent control act, we held that a lessee of a cooperative apartment unit was, for the purposes of the Federal Housing and Rent Act of 1947, an owner.

    Therefore, as of September 10, the date of the trial herein, the tenant was not then protected by any such Federal regulation, as he had been prior to July 1, 1947." See also Kole v. Kousnetz, 1948, 335 Ill. App. 123, 80 N.E.2d 451. It has been recognized, under Acts modeled upon the Federal pattern, that purchasers of apartments under the co-operative plan are to be treated as landlords or owners. See Hicks v. Bigelow, D.C. Mun. Ct., 55 A.2d 924, and Smith v. Feigin, 273 App. Div. 277, 77 N.Y.S.2d 229, affirmed without opinion by the New York Court of Appeals, 298 N.Y. 534, 80 N.E.2d 668.

  2. Kenny v. Thompson

    87 N.E.2d 229 (Ill. App. Ct. 1949)   Cited 2 times

    The new Federal rent law, 50 U.S.C.A. Appendix, Sec. 1881, et seq., and regulations, which became effective July 1, 1947, contained no such 80% requirement with respect to co-operative apartments. Therefore, as of September 10, the date of the trial herein, the tenant was not then protected by any such Federal requirement, as he had been prior to July 1, 1947.' See also Kole v. Kousnetz, 1948, 335 Ill. App. 123, 80 N.E.2d 451. It has been recognized, under Acts modeled upon the Federal pattern, that purchasers of apartments under the cooperative plan are to be treated as landlords or owners. See Hicks v. Bigelow, D.C. Mun. Ct., 55 A.2d 924, and Smith v. Feigin, 273 App. Div. 277, 77 N.Y.S.2d 229, affirmed without opinion by the Now York Court of Appeals, 298 N.Y. 534, 80 N.E.2d 668. [See, also, 542 Morris Park Ave. Corporation v. Wilkins, 197 N.Y.S. 625, 627; Curtis v. Le May, 60 N.Y.S.2d 768, 770.]