Case Name: Clemilt Realty Company, Inc., Appellant, v. Charles F. Wood, Respondent
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1921-03-08
Citations: 230 N.Y. 646
Docket Number: 
Parties: Clemilt Realty Company, Inc., Appellant, v. Charles F. Wood, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 230
Pages: 646–647

Head Matter:
Clemilt Realty Company, Inc., Appellant, v. Charles F. Wood, Respondent.
Landlord and tenant — action for rent — defense that rent was unjust and unreasonable —• constitutionality of chapter 944 of Laws of 1920.
Clemilt Realty Co., Inc., v. Wood, 194 App. Div. 508, affirmed.
(Argued January 19, 1921;
decided March 8, 1921.)
Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered December 24, 1920, which affirmed an order of Special Term denying a motion by plaintiff for judgment on the pleadings. The action was for rent. The answer set up as a defense that the rent was unjust and unreasonable and the lease oppressive.
The following questions were certified: 1. Is the defense contained in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the answer herein sufficient in law upon the face thereof? 2. Is chapter 944 of the Laws of 1920 a constitutional act? 3. Does • chapter 944 of the Laws of 1920 deprive the plaintiff of his liberty or property without due process of law, in violation of article 1, section 6, of the New York Constitution, and section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States? 4. Does chapter 944 of the Laws of 1920 constitute the taking of private property belonging to the plaintiff for private use without just compensation, in violation of article 1, section 6, of the New York Constitution? 5. Does chapter 944 of the Laws of 1920 deny to the plaintiff the equal protection of the law, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States? 6. Does chapter 944 of the Laws of 1920 impair the obligation of the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant, in violation of article 1, section 10, of the Constitution of the United States?
Emanuel S. Cohn for appellant.
Charles Hobby Bassford and Louis F. Reed for respondent.

Opinion:
Order affirmed, with costs, on opinion of Pound, J., in People ex rel. Durham Realty Corp. v. La Fetra (230 N. Y. 429), and questions certified answered as follows: Nos. 1 and 2 in the affirmative; Nos. 3,4,5 and 6 in the negative.
Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Hogan, Cardozo, Pound and Andrews, JJ.; Crane, J., concurs in result on opinion in Guttag v. Shatzkin (230 N. Y. 647); McLaughlin, J., dissents on dissenting opinion in Levy Leasing Co. v. Siegel (230 N. Y. 634).