Legal Opinion

Heyman v. McGoldrick

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

Decided April 21, 1953PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPeck, P. J.

The State Rent Commission found that the landlord in this proceeding was entitled to a rent increase in order to attain the net annual return allowed by law (State Residential Rent Law, § 4, subd. 4; L. 1946, ch. 274, as amd.). The problem presented is one of apportionment of the required increase between tenants who have previously given a 15% voluntary increase and those who have not. The commission first assessed a 15% increase against those tenants who had not previously consented to an adjustment, and as that was not sufficient to make up the need, it then assessed the balance required…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Fliashnick v. McGoldrickAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1952

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. 241 East 22nd Street Corp. v. City Rent AgencyNew York Court of Appeals · 1973
  2. Kerr v. UrstadtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1973
  3. Schwartz v. HermanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1962
  4. Union Properties, Inc. v. GabelNew York Supreme Court · 1965

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

Powered by the Exa API