New-York tribune., 1920-12-25

pended by the court until September
80, 1920.
This, said the court, is an attempt
ny the Legislature to deprive the owner
OF landlord for two years one month
end four days, Of possession. OF his
property and to legalize the tenant
to remain in possession during that
cision Of the Appellate Division of the
Second Department. holding the law
valid, it was decided by the Appellate
Division of the First Department to
follow that decision, that the laws may
be admins stered the same in all parts
OF the city until their validity is
t.nally passed upon.
The court, therefore, denied the ap-
plications of the two landlords for
writs directing the court clerks to
issue The dispossess warrants.
Another instance in which the Ap-
pcllate Division held the law uncon-
BY ejectment proceedings TO recover
possession Of their property from
tenants after the expiration Of the
terms prescribed in the leases. These
actions we're Guttog against Sclatzkin
and SO West End Avenue, Inc, against
Stern.
The court held that Chapter 947, for
bidding the maintenance Of such an ac-
tion for a period Of two years, one
month and four days, without prescrib-
ing any other remedy by which owners
or landlords may recover possession OF
their property after the rights of the
tenants have expired under their leases
is invalid on the ground that it is an
impairment OF the jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court under the Constitution
a, rc III -,
tracts; also on the ground thst it at
tempts to transfer the right to the use
and possession OF the property from the
owners or landlords to the tenants for
the period specified or Tor such part
thereof as the tenants see fit to remain
in possession
Point for the Landlords
ut is not competent" said the court
'for the Legislature thus to close the
doors Of the courts TO the owners OF
property and deprive them for such
period Of time from regaining posses
session Of their property and to com
pei them against their will TO furnish
neat, light, elevator service, etc, to
their former tenants during the period
they see fit to hold over"
Justice Laughlin, in the case Of $40
West End Avenue. Inc, against Henry
Il. Stern. wherein the defendant re-
NAMED in possession of his apartmen ent
after the lease expired, said that Chap
Ter 917 of the new laws is null and
void in that no remedy has been ere
ated by the Legislature to take the
place Of the remedies suspended and
no other adequate remedy exists
In the case Of the Edgar A. Lew
Leasing Company, Inc, against Jerome
Slegel, Presiding Justice Clarke in ar
opinion in which Justice Dowlinp con.
CURED, said that the result of tho law
is either to take private property for
public use without due compensation
which is not permissible. or to take i,JI,
/ private property for private use, which
has never been allowed
! The presiding justice added that the
act under consideration violates the
Fundamental principles of the Fedora
and state constitutions and that, in his
opinion, they have "the effect of de
privlng the owners of certain classes OF
property without due process of law anc
destroy the fundamental right Of the
private ownership of property, which
mas heretofore been sedulously pro.
tected by the courts under constitu.
tlonal provisions, and take away the
freedom OF contract in regard to spe
cifc property within d limited terri.
tory, to wit. real estate used for dwell
ing purposes in the City of New York.
Justice Clarke said he realized tha-
the questions should be submitted as
! speedily as possible to the Court oi
Appeals, and therefore contcntcd him.
self with his brief dissenting view.