INTRODUCTORY

Judging by the space occupied in the daily newspapers, by the amount of litigation in the courts and by the interest of the people, no subject is of greater concern to the públic generally than that concerning the rights and obligations of tenants and landlords under recent "rent" or "housing" legislation. Much confusion has been created by the frequent changes in the laws enacted by the Legislature of this State at its sessions during the years 1920 and 1921 and by the reports and explanations, not always wholly accurate, of court decisions, in themselves frequently conflicting or apparently so.

The authors have undertaken the writing of this book primarily for the purpose of clarifying, so far as possible, this important subject. The work has been written for the layman interested in the subject as well as for the lawyer. Attempt has been made to supply in an appropriate place, readily found, by those who may seek herein, the rights and obligations respectively of tenants and landlords, as those rights and obligations are affected by the laws of the State of New York passed by the Legislature during the years 1920 and 1921, usually designated the "Emergency" Laws affecting "housing" or "rents." The authors have not attempted to treat of the relations of landlord and tenant generally. That is a subject far too broad and comprehensive to be treated in a work such as it is sought to make of the present one.

The meaning and intent of the Legislature is not in all instances easy to ascertain. The laws were enacted with considerable speed after their introduction into the Legisla

ture, and without any very great consideration, in order to meet what was considered an emergency, requiring prompt action. We have in great measure refrained from giving our own interpretation of doubtful wording in the statutes, believing it was the better policy and in furtherance of the primary object for which this work was written, namely, to clarify the subject to refrain from injecting personal views, which at best would not be authoritative.

Up to the time of the publication of this work, the general principle of the laws has been declared not to be violative of either the State or Federal Constitutions.1

The constitutionality of some of the provisions of the laws still remains to be passed upon by the Supreme Court of the United States. All the laws, however, have been declared constitutional by the Court of Appeals of this State.2

It may be observed that our highest State Court has not yet been called to pass upon any question of construction or interpretation of the laws. Several hundred reported decisions have been made by the courts of original jurisdiction, as well as by courts of appellate jurisdiction, and note has been made of most of these, and of many unreported decisions also, in this work.

In giving the proper interpretation of any doubtful provisions of the law, the general underlying thought which prompted the passage of the "emergency" legislation should be recalled-that of affording relief to tenants from oppres

1 Marcus Braun Holding Company, Inc., v. Feldman, 13 U. S. Adv. Ops. 1920-21, page 539, and Block v. Hirsh, 13 U. S. Adv. Ops. 1920–21, page 531.

People ex rel. Durham Realty Corp. v. La Fetra, 230 N. Y. 429; Edgar A. Levy Leasing Co., Inc., v. Siegel, 230 N. Y. 633; Clemilt Realty Co., Inc., v. Wood, 230 N. Y. 646; Guttag v. Shatzkin, 230 N. Y. 647; 810 West End Avenue, Inc., v. Stern, 230 N. Y. 652; People ex rel. Rayland Realty Corp. v. Fagan, 230 N. Y. 653; People ex rel. H. D. H. Realty Corp. v. Murphy, 230 N. Y. 654; People ex rel. Ballin v. O'Connell, 230 N. Y. 655.

sive conditions. It seems to the authors that this should be the controlling spirit that should be applied in reaching the proper interpretation of doubtful provisions. At the same time it is important to bear in mind that the property of the landlord must not be confiscated. The Legislature did not, of course, intend to pass confiscatory laws. It intended to deal fairly and equitably with both tenants and landlords, but yet to protect tenants in the possession of their homes and to furnish them relief from conditions which in some instances had become almost intolerable by reason of circumstances of which note has been made in the text of this work.

No one as yet has deemed it necessary or advisable to promulgate a pamphlet, as was done in England during the agitation respecting land tenure in the middle of the last century, calling attention to the fact that the collection of rent was no robbery. A pamphlet entitled "Rent no Robbery,' a defense of the English land system, was published in 1851.3 However, the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of the State of New York in the course of an opinion," felt called upon to say that "A landlord still has the right if he finds a tenant willing to pay him the rent demanded, to accept the rent which such tenant is willing to pay."

The authors desire to make two observations respecting these "emergency" laws:

First: It is a conservative estimate to make, that ninetyfive per cent of the litigation that has resulted from these laws, and the volume of litigation has been tremendous, has been in the City of New York, in the Municipal Court of that city. This was to be anticipated. That court, even prior to the enactment of these laws, handled almost all the litigation

The author was George Makgill.

'First Department.

Elvira Realty Co. v. Bracegirdle, 115 Misc. 197, 187 N. Y. Supp. 518.

in New York City growing out of the relation of landlord and tenant. Nevertheless, no provision was made for any assistance either in the judicial or clerical force of this court to meet the added burden cast upon it by the emergency laws."

On this subject the following quotation from the report of the committee on practice and procedure in the Municipal Court of the New York County Lawyers' Association, under date of May 5, 1921, printed in the Year Book of 1921 of that Association, is pertinent:—

"Your Committee has been deeply concerned with the inability during the past winter to obtain speedy trials and proper clerical assistance in many of the Municipal Court districts. This in the main is chargeable to the heavy landlord and tenant litigation. Since the new housing laws went into effect almost 100,000 rent cases were instituted in the various Municipal Courts in Manhattan and the Bronx and about $4,000,000 was deposited with the different clerks. Notwithstanding the adjustment of many of these cases, this litigation swamped the courts. Though an effort was made to obtain clerical relief, the President of the Board of Justices informed us this as yet has been unsuccessful.

The recent bill disapproved by Mayor Hylan providing for the appointment by the Appellate Division of referees to hear and try Municipal Court cases would have relieved the calendars. The failure of this bill is indeed unfortunate."

6 This situation was recognized by the Legislature. Relief in this direction was attempted by the passage of Senate Bill, No. 1746, Int. No. 1370, providing for appointment by the Appellate Divisions of the Supreme Court in the 1st and 2nd Departments of referees in the Municipal Court. A bill was passed (Senate Int. No. 1371) providing for an additional justice in the 4th District of Brooklyn and a further bill was passed (Senate Int. No. 1372) providing for a new district by a division of the present 7th District in Manhattan and for an additional justice therein.

The constitution of this State requires that all local bills be forwarded to the Mayor of the City of New York for his approval. This practice was pursued in respect to the bills above mentioned. They were returned without his