The New York herald., 1922-05-07
TENANT LOSES RENT
LAW CASE IN COURT

If man occupying an apartment
in a non-elevator house at SIS a month
rent decides for the comfort and well
fare of his wife to sign a lease for a
suite In an elevator apartment house
ut 800 month and then refuses TO
pay more than one months rent on
.he ground that the rate is unreasonable
and that he entered into the contract
under duress, such n tenant does not
place himself under the sheltering arms
of the so-called Rent Laws" accord
ing to a recent decision by Municipal
Court Justice John Hetherington OF the
Seventh district. Manhattan.
The tenant in the case is Albert Cross
man. salesman for a New York business
house. The landlord is A. T.. w Kin
nan, executor OF the estate of the late
Marshall =. Wilder. The tenant had
been occupying under lease an apart
ment in 500 to GIL West 140th street.
A jury rendered n verdict against Mr.
Grossman and the tenant moved that it
be set aside In denying the motion.
Justice Hetherington in his opinion
says.
Recognizing the scarcity of dwelling
places which enable owners OF rentable
houses to demand. when so inclined. un-
reasonably high rentals. and prompted
by desire to afford relief for tenants
who, under stress OF emergency, were
compelled to enter into extortionate
agreements TO secure places of habita-
ton for their families, the Legislature
enacted certain statutes which are popu-
larly called the Rent Laws and therein
have in large measure curbed rapacious
landlords by permitting various de-
lenses to be interposed I'm proceedings
brought to oust tenants or recover rent
reserved in the agreement of hiring.
These rent laws permit n tenant to
iDterpose as defense claim that the
rent Is unjust, unreasonable and oppres-
sive and that the agreement under which
IL was reserved was entered into by the
tenant under duress.' such 'duress' be-
ing based upon the emergency arising
from the shortage OF dwellings and the
necessity of "A domicile.
I'm the case at bar the tenan. inter-
posed such defense and he was not
precluded from rendering such ah issue
as ,his counsel argues, but he failed to
establish it by any evidence whatever
he1ce verdict was directed for the
landlord and such verdict was rendered
by the jury. The tenant now moves that
II he set aside and a new trial ordered.
upon the facts II appears that the
tenhnt was in possession OF a comfort
rental OF SIS. lie was n married man
and lived therein with his wife. 1ndica-
tions Of the realization OF his hopes OF
posterity. melted him TO consider the
Inconvenience TO his wife In the use OF
tho stairs as a means of access to the
apartment and the easier mode OF an
elevator. hence he cast about him for
"a so-called elevator" apartment and
found the property of the landlord here.
Inquiry disclosed that an apartment at
SEQ per month was available but it did
not suit him. lie asked II n better one
wcre available and was shown the one
he,now occupies. Concerning its rental
he was told it would be 500 monthly
Ho' asked IL II would be renovated and
tho reply was made that II would be II
he pntered into n lease Of it for term.
rotthis he agreed. the lease In question
fere was prepared and executed; the
landlord at n considerable expense reno
waited the apartment 20 suit the taste OF
tne tenant and the tenant entered into
possession and paid one months rent,
buk refused to pay thereafter at The rate
@rn addition TO these facts the tenant
teafined that he was a salesman for
n New York business house, and had
cornpletcd his education by course
in t1aw which had enabled him 70 be
= omitted 70 the Bar. although he was
nok now = practising attorney. Fur
thcrniore that the apartment which he