New-York tribune., 1920-07-09
Decision Ba1ks
Landlord Raid
On New Tenants
Brooklyn Municipal Court
Justice Rules $3.50 In
crease Is All Allowed;
Ousting Plan Is Halted
Jersey Renters Lose
Supreme Court Voids Three
Ordinances Passed to
Prevent Profiteering

Landlords who may be planning to
dispossess tenants by October in the
hope of forcing new ones to pay ex-
orbitant increases in rent will be
baked by decision Of Justice Jacob
8; strahl, Of the Fourth Municipal
that increases Of more than Is per cent
of what was paid for the same place
year before is presumptiye evidence of
profteering, whether or not the in
crease is demanded of new tenant or
Of an old one.
Even should the new tenant pay such
an increase once, that, according to
Justice Strahl's decision, does not de-
prive him Of the protection of the law
to prevent other such payments.
The decision is expected to have a
widespread effect on the annual fall
moving problem, in that it was the un-
disguised plan Of many unscrupulous
tenement house owners, including
those Of many of the city's finest apart
ment houses, to get their old tenants
out of their property in the belief that
from new tenants they could demand
rents from which the old tenants are
protected by the new laws. Justice
Strahl's decision puts an entirely diff
ferent complexion on such plans, as
now, it is said, many tenants will be
permitted to remain where they are,
since their landlords know that they
can gain nothing by forcing them out.
Justice Strahl's decision was in
favor of Frank F. Eichauer, tenant
Of an apartment of 765 Park Place,
Brooklyn, owned by the F. A. L. Realty
Corporation, which demanded that
Eichauer pay $55 month for an unim
proved apartment under lease. After
paying the amount specified once, Eich
auer refused to pay more than $36.25,
which was 25 per cent increase over
what former tenant paid in the cor
responding month of the preceding
year. The realty company instituted
proceedings in which Eichauer was
sustained.
where aeA"fh they o. starssS tars '' in their fight
against greedy landlords, as a result
Of the decision handed down at Tren-
ton yesterday by the Supreme Court
of the state. Justice Swayze rendered
the verdict which sets aside three or
dinAnces directed against rent profit
eering.
The court held that it was illegal
to devote public funds to the defense
of rent payers, and that it is preju--
dical to property owners to compel
landlords to file notice of proposed
evictions and rent advances.
he QeCISlOu VOluS tHe IcCSuI GA VI Io
Of Jersey City to save it's people from
excessive rentals. The ordinances
were passed after the city had taken
a hand in a definite attempt to ease
the burden of rapidly rising rents,
and the passage of the ordinances was
regarded as meaning complete victory
for the tenants.
The first Of the ordinances provided
for the assignments of city funds to
defend litigants in actions against
landlords in cases where, it was
charged, the rent was exorbitant. This
was overthrown on the grounds that
there is no authority in city govern
ment to assess property for funds to
maintain legal actions against that
property.
Provision for the manner in which
the funds were to be appropriated for
the defense of the rent payers was
made in the second ordinance, and this
was ruled out because it was held that
municipalities cannot "give money or
property or loans to individuals, asso-
Citations or corporations or become, di-
rectly or indirectly, owner of any
stocks Of any corporation" This in
cludes the advancement Of money by
the city to the defense of litigants in
private suits.
The third ordinance, requiring land
lords to file notice of orders to va
cate or of rent advances, was held to
be unreasonable by the court. 1t was
declared that this regulation placed
An additional burden upon the owners
of rental property and that it was in
tended as a threat of proceedings
against landlords