Krauss v. Perry

2 Citing cases

  1. Minton v. Domb

    63 A.D.2d 36 (N.Y. App. Div. 1978)   Cited 15 times

    "Ordinarily, courts will defer to construction given statutes and regulations by the agencies responsible for their administration, if said construction is not irrational or unreasonable" (Matter of Albano v Kirby, 36 N.Y.2d 526, 532). In an effort to differentiate between this case and Axelrod v Starr ( 52 A.D.2d 232, affd 41 N.Y.2d 942) and Krauss v Perry ( 53 A.D.2d 578) upon which respondents rely as controlling, we find that Axelrod holds that housing accommodations financed by loans from public agencies are subject to the New York City Rent Stabilization Law, and the rent guidelines established thereto, during the period that the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974 is applicable within the City of New York. The case here differs from Axelrod in that the present housing accommodations were not financed by agency loans. Housing accommodations such as condominiums, co-operatives and Class B dwellings are not specifically exempted by the ETPA but are exempted by the Rent Stabilization Law. Thus, they are still exempt from regulation, though not specifically exempted by the Emergency Tenant Protection Act.

  2. 16TH ST Assoc v. Albert

    107 Misc. 2d 338 (N.Y. Civ. Ct. 1980)   Cited 1 times

    Co-operative accommodations are under the guidelines of the Emergency Tenants Protection Act of 1974, as implemented by New York City Resolution No. 276, and the tenants can only be evicted in accordance with the New York City Rent Stabilization Code of 1969 (Code), as amended. (Krauss v Perry, 53 A.D.2d 578; 38-50 West 9th St. Corp. v Stagg, NYLJ, April 12, 1978, p 10, col 1.) Section 61 of the Code is the applicable statute in the instant case.