Clemilt Realty Co., Inc., Appellant, v. Charles F. Wood, Respondent

Clemilt Realty Co., Inc., Appellant, v. Charles F. Wood, Respondent. First Department, December 24, 1920. See head note in Levy Leasing Co., Inc., v. Siegel (ante, p. 482). Appeal by the plaintiff, Clemilt Realty Co., Inc., from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 26th day of November, 1920, denying plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, consisting of the complaint and answer. The complaint alleges that the plaintiff is a domestic corporation; that on the 20th day of August, 1920, it entered into an agreement whereby it rented to the defendant an apartment in the apartment house known as 561 West One Hundred and Forty-first street, for a term of two years commencing October 1, 1920, at the yearly rental of $1,080, payable monthly in advance on the first day of each month; that the defendant has refused to pay the installment due on October 1, 1920, amounting to $90, although due demand has been made therefor; that the plaintiff duly performed all the terms of the lease on its part to be performed; that by reason of the premises there is due to the plaintiff from, the defendant $90, for which sum plaintiff demands judgment. The answer denies that there is due to the plaintiff from the defendant the sum of ninety dollars, and alleges that the premises are located in a city of the first class, and that the rent set forth in the agreement alleged in the complaint is unjust and unreasonable and the said agreement under which the said rent is sought to be recovered is oppressive. Emanuel S. Cahn, for the appellant. Charles Hobby Bassford, for the respondent. William D. Guthrie and Julius Henry Cohen, Special Deputy Attorneys-General, for the Attorney-General, and Elmer G. Sammis and Bernard Hershkopf for the Joint Legislative Committee on Housing, as amici cur ice. [MAJORITY — Laughlin, J.:] Laughlin, J.: This lease was made after the enactment of chapter 136 of the Laws of 1920 and before the enactment of chapter 944, and the defense made is a defense authorized by said chapter 136. There is no material difference between the facts of this case and those presented in Levy Leasing Co., Inc., v. Siegel (194 App. Div. 482), argued and decided herewith, and the contentions with respect to the invalidity of the statute are substantially the same. The order should, therefore, be affirmed on the authority of our decision in the other case, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Mebbell and Gbeenbaum, JJ., concur; Clabke, P. J., and Dowling, J., dissent. Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. For dissenting opinion see ante, p. 507,— [Rep,