Case Name: Edgar A. Levy Leasing Company, Inc., Appellant, v. Jerome Siegel, Respondent
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1921-03-08
Citations: 230 N.Y. 634
Docket Number: 
Parties: Edgar A. Levy Leasing Company, Inc., Appellant, v. Jerome Siegel, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 230
Pages: 634–646

Head Matter:
Edgar A. Levy Leasing Company, Inc., Appellant, v. Jerome Siegel, Respondent.
Landlord and tenant — action for rent — defense that rent was unjust and unreasonable — constitutionality of chapter 944 of Laws of 1920.
Levy Leasing Co., Inc., v. Siegel, 194 App. Div. 482, 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 upon the pleadings in an action for rent.
The answer sets up two affirmative defenses: (1) That defendant executed the lease sued on under duress, and (2) that the rent reserved under the renewal lease is unjust, unreasonable and oppressive, the latter defense being predicated on chapter 944 of the Laws of 1920.
The following questions were certified: First. Is the first alleged affirmative defense pleaded in said answer sufficient in law on the face thereof? Second. Is the second alleged affirmative defense set forth in the answer sufficient in law upon the face thereof? Third. Is chapter 944 of the Laws of 1920 a constitutional act? Fourth. 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? Fifth. 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? Sixth. 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? Seventh. 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?
Louis Marshall and Lewis M. Isaacs for appellant.
Alfred L. Rose and Benjamin G. Paskus for respondent.
Francis M. Scott, I. Maurice Wormser and Julius H. Zieser for Real Estate Investors of New York, Inc., amici curiae.
Joseph J. Schwartz and A. H. Spigelgass for Kings County Taxpayers Association, amici curiae.

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, 4,5,6 and 7 in the negative; Nos. 2 and 3 in the affirmative.
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 in following opinion: