New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-05-30
DECISION LIFTS
BLAME OF OWNERS
Not AnSWerable for Mis-
deeds of Which They
Have No knowledge
WERE RESPONSIBLE
FOR ACTS OF TENANTS
Tenement House Law Amend.
mcnt Unconstitutional,
Says Court.
~ the Advisory Council of Real Estate
Interests.

By the Advisory Council of Real Estate
Interests.
Tho Advisory Council of Real Es-
tate Interests, through its board Of
counsel. Morgan J. O'Brien chairman.
calls to the attention of property own
crs the determination Of two important
legal matters. the first By the Cour, of
Appeals. in the case of the Tenement
House Commissioner against Lucy A..
McDevitt.
In the past there has been consider
able complaint on the part of property
owners who have been held directly
responsible for conditions upon the
premises which they own, when, as n
matter of fact. these conditions are
directly attributable TO the negligence
and the carelessness Of the tenants. It
has been claimed that the tenement
house law in this respect has been Sc
we're upon property owners. for 1t holds
them directly liable, in many cases,
for the actions Of their tenants.
This condition of affairs has doubt
less arisen because Of the fact that Il J
much easier to hold the property own
ers liable than the tenants, who may
move out upon immediate notice. This
same tendency to impose all the re-
sponsibilty upon the property owner
was also evident in the case Of the
Fire Commissioner against the Green
wood Cemetery Corporation, where
the Fire Commissioner endeavored TO
place the cost of eXtinguishing the
fire. probably caused by the tenants
negligence, upon the property owner.
However in the recent case cited above
The Court Of Appeals decided that the
amendment 20 the tenement house la"
making the owners Of property respon-
s,ble for the character o. their tel
ants was unconstitutional
The amendment provides sou me
for convictions of the maintenance OF
disorderly tenements and 5lVVV me
for subsequent convictions. ~ the en-
forcement Of this amendment the Cor
poratlon Counsel believed tnat disor-
DERBY persons would be kept out OF
tenement houses The facts adducel
show that the property owner had no
knowledge Of the character OF the
people occupying his tenement, and
the question involved was whether
such a property owner could be made
TO pay fine for legal violation or
which he had no knowledge and could
neither prevent nor control. The Court
of Appeals decided that he could not
be held liable under the facts stated
Naturally. = any properly owner
was cognizant of the conditions pre-.
yaili,g upon his premises sucn as
stated In this particular case, real cs-
tate interests would heartily approve
OF ,he enforcement OF the most drastic
laws 20 prevent the repetition Of such
conditions. but when the property
owner can not reasonably know OF such
conditions, As in this case. u would
seem rather eXacting 70 hold him re
spOnsible for the same. Although. IN
the opinion OF the Corporation Coun-
sci. II may seem that the amendment
% the law is the only method that can
be devised 20 keep disrcputable persons
from reputable persons IN tenements,
nevertheless the very harshncss Of the
law has apparently worked its undoine
There - every reason TO believe that
the real estate interests would heartily
cooperate with the Corporation Coun-
sci IN seeking a remedy for the
problem confronting the city authori
tics. without making the solution en-
tlrely too drastic.