Appellant contends that as matter of law the conversion was a "substantial rehabilitation" of the property or a "major capital improvement" within the meaning of subdivision 4 of section 4 of the State Residential Rent Law (L. 1946, ch. 274, as amd.) and paragraph c of subdivision 1 of section 33 of the State Rent and Eviction Regulations.
Order unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. (Matter of Lubitz Bros. v. Abrams, 286 App. Div. 871, motion...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.