Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

199 Misc. 615

Lubowitz v. McGoldrick

New York Supreme Court

Decided January 24, 1951

New York Supreme Court · decided 1951-01-24

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently January 1955

1 state decisions

Relies on Matter of Mounting Finishing Co. v. McGoldrick · Matter of Park East Land Corp. v. Finkelstein · Cohen v. McGoldrick

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1951-01-24

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Murphy, J.

¶1Application by petitioner to review the determination of the State Rent Administrator and for an order annulling such determination reducing the maximum rent registered for failure to maintain the existing services.

¶2The record abundantly supports the determination of the respondent that the landlord has failed to comply with subdivision 2 of section 34 of the Rent and Eviction Regulations. The respondent under such regulation may order a decrease of the maximum rent due to the failure of the landlord to properly maintain essential services included in the maximum rent (Rent and Eviction Regulations, § 23). The petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to sustain his contention that a three-year custom prevailed in the painting of the tenant’s apartment instead of the two-year custom established by the respondent.

¶3*616An examination of the law and regulations fails to reveal any requirement making it mandatory upon the administrator to grant a hearing. Such hearing, if granted, is merely permissive in nature and subject to the administrator’s discretion (State Residential Rent Law [L. 1946, ch. 274, as amd. by L. 1950, ch. 250], § 5, subd. 1; §7, subd. 3; Rent and Eviction Regulations, § 85, subd. 8; § 98, subd. 6; Matter of Cohen v. McGoldrick, 198 Misc. 1036). All of the facts presented by the record amply indicate that in the exercise of such discretion there was no need for an oral hearing. The failure to grant a hearing under the circumstances does not warrant a reversal of the respondent’s determination.

¶4There being a rational basis and warrant in the record both as to fact and law, the determination will not be disturbed (Matter of Mounting & Finishing Co. v. McGoldrick, 294 N. Y. 104, 108; Matter of Park East Land Corp. v. Finkelstein, 299 N. Y. 70).

¶5Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

/199/misc/615 · .json · Public domain