Legal Opinion

Feinberg v. Abrams

New York Supreme Court

Decided July 16, 1955PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMatthew M. Levy, J.

The State Rent Administrator has found as a fact on sufficient evidence that the privilege theretofore granted to the tenant to install a television antenna — which had resulted in an approved rent increase — was not and will not be utilized. In the circumstances here, the tenant was not frozen into that rent increase. This is not a case where the landlord has delivered something or spent anything in carrying out the grant of increased services. Since the tenant did not desire to avail himself of the right, he could (I think) have applied to the administrator to have been placed in status…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Motta v. Temporary State Housing Rent CommissionNew York Supreme Court · 1951
  2. Brown v. McGoldrickNew York Supreme Court · 1952
  3. Mayfair-York Corp. v. McGoldrickNew York Supreme Court · 1954

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Everly v. WeaverNew York Supreme Court · 1957
  2. Willmont Liquors, Inc. v. RohanNew York Supreme Court · 1956
  3. Lang v. WeaverNew York Supreme Court · 1956

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API