Legal Opinion

Weinfeld v. Knickerbocker Village, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided March 7, 1941PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtO’Malley, J.

The question presented is whether plaintiff, as Commissioner of Housing of the State of New York, has authority to compel defendant, a limited dividend housing corporation organized prior to July 1, 1939, to renew a lease. Concededly, the tenant meets the requirements for occupancy in a public housing project, and the refusal of defendant to renew was not predicated upon any discrimination because of race, color, creed or religion.

*384Defendant is a public limited dividend housing corporation formed in 1933 pursuant to the provisions of the State Housing Law (Laws of 1926, chap. 823). A total…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Matter of Lyons v. PrinceNew York Court of Appeals · 1939

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Davidson v. City of ElmiraNew York Supreme Court · 1943
  2. Fruhling v. Amalgamated Housing Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1961
  3. Weinfeld v. Hillside Housing Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1941
  4. Knickerbocker Village, Inc. v. LackowCity of New York Municipal Court · 1947
  5. Knickerbocker Village, Inc. v. GreifCity of New York Municipal Court · 1947

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

Powered by the Exa API