Case ID: f2d_469/html/1402-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Stephen J. POLLACK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 118 EAST 60TH OWNERS, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 2-7.
    Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals.
    Dec. 12, 1972.
    
      David Simon, New York City, for plaintiff-appellant.
    Alfred A. Rosen, New York City, for defendants-appellees, William Gould and Louise Gould.
    Before HASTIE, ANDERSON and HASTINGS, Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

This appeal is the apparent culmination of a series of dilatory legal proceedings designed to delay the eviction of the appellant from an apartment in New York City.

Following administrative proceedings before the New York City Rent Commission, an eviction proceeding in the Civil Court of the City of New York

which was interrupted by three interlocutory appeals by the tenant, Pollack, an unsuccessful appeal by Pollack to the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York and denials by both the Appellate Term and the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of leave to appeal to the Appellate Division, Pollack filed this action in the Southern District of New York. He prayed for a declaratory judgment that the defendants had violated the Economic Stabilization Act, the Regulations and Executive Order No. 11627; an order enjoining the defendants from enforcing the judgment of eviction they had obtained from the State court and for damages in the amount of $25,000. The trial court granted a temporary restraining order, but two weeks later vacated that order and dismissed the complaint. This appeal followed.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We are advised that Pollack has vacated the premises which were the subject of the complaint, thus all issues relating to injunctive relief are moot. The dispute out of which this litigation arises developed on or before May 1, 1970 and was the subject of State administrative proceedings long before August 15, 1971, the effective date of Executive Order No. 11627 which established Federal rent controls. Counsel has not demonstrated and we cannot visualize any theory within the facts here presented under which Pollack can claim to be a “person suffering legal wrong because of any act or practice arising out of [The Economic Stabilization Act] or any order or regulation issued pursuant thereto, . . . ” § 210(a) Economic Stabilization Act, as amended, Public Law 92-210, December 22, 1971.

This case has been assigned to the summary calendar by the Chief Judge pursuant to Rules 24 and 27 of the Rules of this court for summary disposition without oral argument. Counsel have been advised of that calendar assignment. •

Affirmed.