The New York herald. [volume] (New York, N.Y.) 1920-1924, 1920-11-05
NEW RENT LAWS
ATTACKED FROM
MANY ANGLES
Permit Private Property
Seizure Without Due
Process, Is Claim.
IEGALIZE TRESPASS'
Open Wedge for Those Who
Would Destroy the
Constitution
DEFENDERS ALSO HEARD
Supreme Court Argument
Made Over Action for Dis
possess Orders.
DEFENDERS ALSO HEARD

The validity of the new rent laws
was attacked and defended vigorously
and at length yesterday before Justice
Leonard A. Giegerich in the Supreme
Court. Vital flaws existed In the legis-
lation. it was commended
George l.. Ingraham. former Justice.
appeared as counsel in two actions
brought for peremptory writs of man
da1nus to compel Justice Edward b
lie Fetra OF the City Court to issue
dispossess orders against tenants OF
two apartment houses. The first ac-
ton was that of the Durham Realty
Company against Olga j. We'll, ten
ant at 400 West End avenue; the other
action was brought by the Brixton
Operating Company against David E.
Levey at 100 West Seventeen street.
other lawyers interested in the case
are Julius Henry Cohen, Alexander @
McNulty, William 3. Guthrie. Assist
ant Corporation Counsel Russell A.
Tarbox and Deputy Attorney General
t60Derl K. beyeT-
Mr.. Ingraham said that Chapter s42
OF the new rent laws was passed in
violation of the Constitution OF the
United States because It impairs the
obliration of contracts. 1t violates the
state Constitution. he said, because II
takes possession of private property
without due process of law, because II
was not on the desks OF the. members
Of the Assembly three days before its
passage, and because no emergency mes
sage calling the attention OF the Legls-
lature to the proposed act was sent by
the Governor.
Landlord Loses Rights.
~ depriving the landlord OF the right
OF summary proceedings. the act. Mr.
Ingraham said, took, away the common
law actions for the recovery of posses
sion of piece of property. The only
remedy the landlord has left, he said. Il
10 break into the place and forcibiy
throw out the tenant lie said the new
legislation practically appropriates prop
erty not for public. but for private use
TTs commended that the plea that the
legislation was passed under the police
power OF the State would not hold De-
cause the law must not be retroactive
lie maintained that no legislation could
abrogate a contract whclh already wal
in existence. He charged that the legis
lation practically permitted continue
trespass upon property.
IF the Legislature has power to gram
this trespass for two years." he said
'1f any emergency exists still at thu
end OF the two years legislation may b.
passed whcih VIII allow the tenants (
remain in possession forever without
the payment of any rent"
Mr.. Ingraham explained that in one
OF the cases before the court a new
tenant to whom the landlord had leased
a contested apartment was now living
in an expensive hotel with his family
and threatened to bring a civil action
against the landlord because he could
not obtain possession of the apartment
why, Your Honor" he said, III thi:
emergency legislation can take away
this property. and Your Honor owns 9
home which would shelter twenty-five
people. you may just as well be called
upon to occupy one-twenty-fifth part o.
your home and let twenty-four othei