Case ID: f-supp_90/html/0962-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BYERS, District Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

WOODS, Housing Expediter, v. NADEL et al.
    Civ. A. No. 9607.
    United States District Court E. D. New York.
    May 31, 1950.
    George G. Allen, New York City, Chief, Litigation Section, Office of Housing Expediter, ■ for plaintiff (William S. Hauser, New York City, of counsel).
    
      Brock & Sulzberger, New York City, for defendants (Myron Sulzberger, New York City, of counsel).
   BYERS, District Judge.

The Court is satisfied that the brokerage paid by the sub-lessee did not inure to the benefit of the defendants in this case, and therefore that the rent paid by the sub-lessee was not enhanced so as to violate the statute; the sub-lessee agreed to pay the brokerage, with knowledge that the tenant in possession, who desired to dispose of her lease, was unwilling to pay a commission to the real estate broker who handled the transaction for her, and this fact was known to the sub-lessee when he entered into negotiations with the tenant of the apartment through the broker who advertised the premises for rental.

Judgment for defendants.