Rotham Realty Co. v. Gabel

Bergan, J. (dissenting).

The “law in effect” in 1960 when the petitioners’ application was made to the former State Administrator (L. 1959, ch. 695) did not provide that a cash ratio to purchase price of 15% met the test of “ normal financing terms ” which that statute prescribed. Neither the “law in effect” in 1960 nor the “ law in effect” in 1963 when respondent made her determination defined what normal financing terms were. The guidelines to normal financing in the 1961 and subsequent statutes were in aid of the Administrator and not prescriptions.

There is no reported case under the…