From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rabkevich v. Gold

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department
Apr 11, 1946
186 Misc. 634 (N.Y. App. Term 1946)

Opinion

April 11, 1946.

Appeal from the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Brooklyn, BROCK, J.

William Reich for appellants.

Meyer Wiener for respondents.



MEMORANDUM


The landlords failed to establish an "immediate compelling necessity" (Rent Regulation for Housing in New York City Defense-Rental Area, § 6, subd. [a], par. [6]; 10 Federal Register 11667) for the apartment presently occupied by the tenants. Such necessity "imports more than desire or convenience" and must be "real, immediate and urgent." (Rent Regulation for Housing with Official Interpretations, § 6, subd. [a], par. [6], Interpretation VIII, issued Jan. 10, 1946.)

The final order and judgment should be unanimously reversed upon the law and facts, with $30 costs to the tenants, and petition dismissed, with appropriate costs in the court below.

MacCRATE, McCOOEY and STEINBRINK, JJ., concur.

Order and judgment reversed, etc.


Summaries of

Rabkevich v. Gold

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department
Apr 11, 1946
186 Misc. 634 (N.Y. App. Term 1946)
Case details for

Rabkevich v. Gold

Case Details

Full title:VIKTORIA RABKEVICH et al., Landlords, Respondents, v. ANNA GOLD et al.…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department

Date published: Apr 11, 1946

Citations

186 Misc. 634 (N.Y. App. Term 1946)
65 N.Y.S.2d 31

Citing Cases

Sviadas v. Seelig

Siegel v. Bowers, 58 N.Y. Supp.2d 187. (b) Consequently, Courts charged with the responsibility of applying…