From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Castillo v. Spilnyk

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department
Jun 2, 1949
195 Misc. 386 (N.Y. App. Term 1949)

Opinion

June 2, 1949.

Appeal from the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Queens, CRAWFORD, J.

Walter Lubarsky for appellants.

Charles H. Sterenfeld for respondent.


The court was without jurisdiction to assess penalties under the Housing and Rent Act of 1947 (U.S. Code, tit. 50, Appendix, § 1881 et seq.) for a period greater than twelve months prior to the commencement of the action, even though the Statute of Limitations was not pleaded ( Lindner v. Miracle Realty Corp., N YL.J., Oct. 18, 1947, p. 924, col. 7 [App. Term, 2d Dept.]; Thompson v. Taylor, 62 F. Supp. 930; Bowles v. Babcock, 65 F. Supp. 380).

It was error, too, for the court to have considered the area rent attorney's interpretation in resolving the facts of this case.

The judgment should be unanimously reversed, on the law, and a new trial granted, with $30 costs to the defendants to abide the event.

STEINBRINK, FENNELLY and COLDEN, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, etc.


Summaries of

Castillo v. Spilnyk

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department
Jun 2, 1949
195 Misc. 386 (N.Y. App. Term 1949)
Case details for

Castillo v. Spilnyk

Case Details

Full title:GEORGE CASTILLO, Respondent, v. HARRY SPILNYK et al., Appellants

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department

Date published: Jun 2, 1949

Citations

195 Misc. 386 (N.Y. App. Term 1949)
91 N.Y.S.2d 436

Citing Cases

Kravitz v. Nankin

It therefore follows that insofar as any recovery is sought for any period earlier than one year prior to…

Kravitz v. Nankin

It therefore follows that insofar as any recovery is sought for any period earlier than one year prior to…