New-York tribune., 1922-05-07
Emergency Rent
Law Fails Tenant
Who Claims Duress
Court Refuses the Plea of
Renter Who Vacates|
One Flat for Another to
Gain Service of Elevator

When q representative Of the J.
Romaine Brown Company called re-
Gently on new tenant for the second
months rent Of 500 he was told that&
the rent was excessive and it would
not be paid, Naturally the tenant was
taken to court and few days ago the
case was decided against the tenant,
who charged duress
justice Hetherington, who heard the
case, did not let it go to the jury, but
decided that the tenant was not en-
titled to the protection accorded to
renters by the emergency rent laws.
Justice Hetherington said in his de-
cision:
Upon the facts it appears that the
tenant was in possession Of COM
Portable dwelling apartment at
monthly rental of SIS. He was mar
ried man and lived therein with his
wife. Indications Of the realization Of
ms hopes of posterity, melted him to
consider the Inconvenience to his wife
IN the use of the stairs as means of
access to the apartment and the easier
mode Of an elevator, hence he cast
about him for so-called elevator
apartment and found the property of
the Marshall p. Welder estate. Inquiry
disclosed that an apartment at $50
/
not suit him. He asked if a better
were available and was shown the one
he now occupies. Concerning its
rental he was told it would be 500
monthly. He asked if it would be
renovated and the reply was made that
1t would be If he entered into a lease
Of it for term To this he agreed,
the lease IN question here was pre-
pared and executed; the landlord at
considerable expense renovated the
apartment to suit the taste of the
tenant and the tenant entered into
possession and paid one months rent.
but refused to pay thereafter at the
rate agreed.
IN addition to these facts the tenant
ttestihed that he was salesman for a
New ork business house. and had com
pleted his education by course in law
which had enabled him to be admitted
TO the bar although he was not now a
practlcing attorney. Furthermore, that
the apartment which he vacated was
available to him as long as he chose to
the one ne leased from the land
lord here. that he was under no notice
to QUIT, and save for the fact that his
former domiciIe had no elevator to
carry his wife up and down. it was
quite comfortable. That ne gave it up
voluntarily.
Under these circumstances. this
tenant, an educated business man, en-
terlng INTO a written lease of an an
partment after driving showd bar
gam as to its renovation and rental now
CLAIMS ne did so under durcss His
counsel urges and cities auth critics TO
the effect that the defence of 'unrels0rl-
ablenass in rental and duress' are
eVaila6le to every tenant under the
provisions Of the rent laws, and that
, ne cannot be estopped nor precluded
from ITS lnterposition. No one ques-
tons this, but it is one thing to inter
iish it. o'''''-
The cause was tried precisely upon
this issue,
"While a general emergency NAV
exist and undoubtedly does, from the
inability of tenants tc procure dwell
lngs, it affects the public collectively,
not always individually. In the case
at bar 1t affected the tenant not at all.
common sense must be reckoned with
IN consideration of these cases and
only where It is established that the
emergency affected the tenant and thay
such emergency forced him into the
agreement can it be held to have been
established. No other conclusion can
In justice be arrived al. The emer-
Gency recognized by the LeglS stature is
an emergency that takes away homes
and shelter from the populace; no such
emergency confronted the tenant here.
He simply desired for his wife the lux
ury OF an elevator apartment. Mothers
have survived childbirth and reared
excellent offspring for centuries before
elevators were thought of and, if he
desired the luxury. he should be held
to pay for ii. AS Well say that a pas
senger on railroad failing to find
satisfactory seats for himself and wife
in day coach, could demand seats in
the parior car without paying the addi-
tonal cost thereof.
"The rent legislation so curtails the
right to freedom of contract Brightly
so, 1t IS adnlttei) that before the re
lief afforded thereby can be granted
the tenant must put himself squareIy
within its provisions, the defence is
Affirmative, and here he had to show
that the emergency worked the
'duress' Of which he complains. Hav-