Opinion
February 14, 1949.
Present — Nolan, P.J., Carswell, Johnston, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ.
In an action instituted on November 6, 1944, by a tenant to recover the damages provided by subdivision (e) of section 205 of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 (U.S. Code, tit. 50, Appendix, § 925) by reason of overpayments in rent made during seven successive months from November, 1943, through May, 1944, the Municipal Court, Borough of Queens, awarded judgment to the tenant based on the measure of damages contained in the Stabilization Extension Act of 1944 (58 U.S. Stat. 632), and awarded the tenant $50 damages and a $25 counsel fee. The Appellate Term affirmed the judgment. By permission of this court, plaintiff appeals from the order of the Appellate Term insofar as it adversely affects him. Order modified on the law by striking therefrom everything following the words "the same is, hereby" and inserting in place thereof a provision modifying the judgment of the Municipal Court by increasing the damages awarded from $50 to $300, and increasing the counsel fee from $25 to $150, and affirming the judgment as thus modified. As so modified, the order of the Appellate Term, insofar as appealed from, is unanimously affirmed, with costs in all courts to appellant. Since the violations occurred before the effective date of the Stabilization Extension Act (June 30, 1944), the measure of damages contained in the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 should have been applied, despite the fact that the action was instituted after the effective date of the amendment. Under the 1942 act, the tenant was entitled to recover $50 for each overpayment. ( Grzybicki v. Friedman, 269 App. Div. 368.) Since the cause of action based on the overpayment of the November, 1943, rent was not brought within one year after the rent was paid on November 1, 1943, that cause of action is not maintainable. An additional counsel fee is awarded because of the increase in the recovery and the work done on the two appeals necessary to vindicate plaintiff's position. ( Gilbert v. Thierry, 58 F. Supp. 235, 242, affd. sub nom. Thierry v. Gilbert, 147 F.2d 603.)