
    Waitt Construction Company, Inc., Appellant, v. Amanda Chase, Respondent.
    
      Landlord and tenant — action for rent — defense that rent is unjust and unreasonable ■— unanimous affirm,anee by Appellate Division of decision that building is not an hotel within meaning of chapter 944 of Laws of 1920 precludes Court of Appeals from considering question on its merits.
    
    
      Waitt Construction Co., Inc., v. Chase, 197 App. Div. 327, affirmed.
    (Submitted April 26, 1922;
    decided May 12, 1922.)
    Appeal, by permission, from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered July 14, 1921, which unanimously affirmed a determination of the Appellate Term affirming a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint. The action is for rent for the month of October, 1920, for rooms in a building known as the George Washington, at No. 116 West Seventy-second street in the city of New York. The defendant held under a written lease dated April 9, 1920: The only defense interposed was that the rent sought to be recovered for the rooms is unjust and unreasonable and that the agreement under which the same is sought to be recovered is oppressive. (Laws of 1920, ch. 944.) The whole controversy in the Municipal Court turned upon the question whether or not the George Washington was an “ hotel,” the court finding that it was not an hotel and, therefore, inasmuch as the plaintiff had not filed the bill of particulars prescribed by chapter 944 of the Laws of 1920, the complaint was dismissed.
    
      Frederick H. McCoun for appellant.
    
      Sylvester Ryan and Joseph Glass for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs. The unanimous affirmance by the Appellate Division precludes this court from considering on the merits the questions argued by counsel; no opinion.

Concur: His cock,- Ch. J., Hogan, Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin, Crane and Andrews, JJ.  