Opinion
October 16, 1951.
Present — Peck, P.J., Glennon, Cohn, Callahan and Shientag, JJ.
Assuming that under the special circumstances of this case the method adopted by Special Term was proper in fixing the reasonable rent by evaluating the rear building separately and apportioning the expenses, nevertheless the Special Term should not have disregarded the fact that the rear of a lot is less valuable than the frontage facing the street. This is the rule generally accepted and applied in the city of New York. Considering that factor, we think that the tenant should be charged with furnishing an 8% return on 25% of the total land value plus the value of the rear building as found by the trial court. This would mean 8% on the total sum of $12,125 amounting to $970. Adding to this the further sum of $418.42, which is 25% of the expenses chargeable to the rear property, we arrive at $1,388.42 as the reasonable rent. This figure is approximately the reasonable rental value of the space occupied by this tenant considering all the factors enumerated in subdivision 1 of section 4 of the emergency rent law, such as the percentage of business space occupied by the tenant, the amount and character thereof, and the cost of maintenance or other services (or lack thereof) in the present case. Order unanimously modified by reducing the rent to $1,388.42 per annum and, as so modified, affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant. Settle order modifying findings accordingly.