I. The statute does not deprive appellants of property without due process of law or impair the obligation of the mortgagee’s contract in. contravention of the State and Federal Constitutions. (Central Sav. Bank v. City of New York, 279 N. Y. 266, 280 N. Y. 9, 306 U. S. 661; Adamec v. Post, 273 N. Y. 250; Loab Estates v. Druhe, 300 N. Y. 176; Matter of New York Univ. v. Temporary State Housing Rent Comm., 304 N. Y. 124; People ex rel. Durham Realty Corp. v. La Fetra, 230 N. Y. 429; 1. L. F. Y. Co. v. City Rent & Rehabilitation Administration, 11 N Y 2d 480.) II. The order appealed from was properly granted and appellants were afforded notice and ample opportunity to be heard under section 309 of the Multiple Dwelling Law. (Matter of Austreal Corp. v. McGoldrick, 305 N. Y. 848.)
Fuld, J.
Acting under the authority of the so-called 1962 Receivership Law (Multiple Dwelling Law, § 309, as amd. by L. 1962, ch. 492), the Department of Buildings of the City of New York, the respondent herein, petitioned for and obtained an order from the Supreme Court designating the Commissioner of Real Estate as receiver of the rents, issues and profits of the premises located at 221 West 21st Street. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed, and the appellants, the owner and mortgagee of the premises involved, appeal as of right, urging, primarily, that the statute is unconstitutional.