The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1905-03-01
NO TENEMENT HOUSES, THEY,
AT LAST THE Law GIVES A DIG
NIFTY TO GREAT APARTMENTS

But There Was Majority OF Only one
In the Court or Appeals and an Em'
phaIc Dissent from Judge Gray Mrs
| Brown Wins Against Her Neighbors
Comfort comes from the Court Of Appeals
Of this State 10 suoh dwellers In modern
apartment houses as have writhed because
the law looked upon them as occupants
OF tenement houses
Kate c. Brown built $500 900 apart ment
house on the blufI at the end Of West Seventy y
first street in 1900 Before it was begun
George Kitching and other neighbors
living In single houses protested, quoting
the covenant under which all the property
concerned was conveyed by Jacob Harsen's
executors In 1873. The covenant contains
strirg OF purposes yard long for which
the land must not be used, including -tene-
ment house The protest was UNDECIDED,
so kitohinB ct al. brought suit. They were
beaten in the Supreme Court and the Appel
late Division and now the highest court
has sustained Mrs. Browns contention
that hers is not a tenement house
Judge Werner wrote tho opinion. which
was ooncurred in by Judges O'Brien, Haight
and Vann, The law defining tenement
house as any building used by three or
moro families and doing their cooking
on the premises was passed In 1857 to deal
with the evils peculiar to the lower grade
tenement houses as they existed at that
time. 1t was designed 10 make them
sanitary.
Judge Werner finds that. 'cessed with
great variety OF recognized nuisanccs,
the tenement house Of the Harsen COY enant
MT fol hot !l. si.,a n f,r
nth, disease, disorder and crime, which
had been the subject of legislative iuves-
ugation and regulation in 1861 and which
continued to exist in 1873.
The apartment house OF 1900 was I'M
known and underlined IN 1873 and Judge
Werner writes that snauy OF the con-
Yeniences and elegancies contained in il
were unknown even In the mansions Of the
rich in 1873 He saws there il as much
difference between Mrs Browns house
and the tenement house OF the statute ns
between tho Taacc Of King and the straw
matched hut Of a subject"
1T IL doubtless true he admits, that
on apartment house like tho defendants
Il Objectionable to many Of the reside nts
OF New York who are fortunate enough to
he still able TO live In their own private
residences; quite as object ionable Indeed,
ss a hotel, although the latter ia not in
the interdlcted list; but In the development
OF great city sentm ent must yield to
necessity.
Judge Gray wrote dissenting opinion,
which was CONQUERED in by Chief Judge
Cullen and Judge Bartlett It says:
The fancied security in which the plain
tits dwelt has been swept away and they
are told that the evolution Of the tenement
house Of former days into the apart nent
house Of to-day is such an alteration In
conditions as TO render the covenant unen-
foroeabe. There IL no prote ction in sta tute
or In ordinance, and their covenant affords
none, against the apartment house which
Affects the passage OF the light and Of the
air, which brings the noise and distur banccs
OF human beehive and which Is irresponsi-
bic for the orderly OF respectable character
OF It's tenants
Judge Gray declares that there IL u galy
no distinction between the tenement house
and the apartment houee. and that -what-
ever the difference in wealth OF occupants
In equipments and furnishings. or in archi-
tecttlre, il Ia not real in the eve Of the law
but is one OF accidental attributes. If we
nrp not 10 give to tenement house it's
y gal meaning OF a community house, where
shall we draw the line Of distinction be-
tween the two kinds OF tenement houses?
Shall the amount OF rentals mark the dis
tinction? If 80, what amount OF rental
moneys shall distin eu!ah the undesirable
Of poorer class OF people from
hose Of a richer clasp