In re Rutherford Estates, Ltd.
Opinion of the Court
Since the fixing of rent at Special Term in this case, under the square foot alternative method provided by subdivision 2 of section 4 of the Commercial Rent Law, the
Were we to agree with respondent on this point, however, the ruling would be academic as applied to this case because we would be obliged to remand the case for further proceedings in accordance with our decision in Matter of Barry Equity Corp. (Marcia Hat Co.) (276 App. Div. 685). The proceeding would certainly then become a pending proceeding and the 15% limitation would apply. Under the circumstances, it is unnecessary to remand the case and the order appealed from should be modified to fix the rent for the respective tenants as follows:
Name of Tenant Rent
Dorman Products Inc......................$2,396.37
Chelsea Elevator Co....................... 2,898.00
Lobby Display & Frame Corp.............. 2,666.09
The order appealed from should be modified accordingly and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. Settle order.
Dissenting Opinion
(dissenting in part). For the reasons stated in my dissent in part in Matter of Barry Equity Corp. (Marcia Hat Co.) (276 App. Div. 685), I dissent in part as to the effective date the rents take effect and vote to modify to make them effective as of the date of decision instead of the date of application.
Peck, P. J., Caulahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ., concur in Per Curiam opinion; Dore, J., dissents in part in opinion.
Order modified in accordance with opinion herein and, as so modified, affirmed. Settle order on notice.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.