From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gerson Realty Inc. v. Casaly

Appeals Court of Massachusetts
Sep 30, 1974
2 Mass. App. Ct. 875 (Mass. App. Ct. 1974)

Summary

nonconforming notice was effective even though lease specified that notice "shall not be deemed to have been duly given or served unless in writing and forwarded by registered mail"

Summary of this case from Sourcing Unlimited, Inc. v. Cummings Props.

Opinion

September 30, 1974.

Gary F. Casaly for the defendant.

Frank J. Santangelo for the plaintiff.


The defendant landlord appeals from a final decree of the Superior Court which determined, on a petition for declaratory relief brought by the plaintiff tenant, that the tenant had validly exercised its option to renew a certain lease. The only issue here is the effectiveness of timely notice of renewal sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, where the lease provided that "such notice . . . shall be given or served and shall not be deemed to have been duly given or served unless in writing and forwarded by registered mail." The function of a requirement that notice be transmitted by registered mail is to provide a means of resolving disputes as to the fact of delivery of the notice. No such dispute exists here, where the fact and timeliness of delivery are admitted and the defendant landlord first raised the issue of the adequacy of notice by certified rather than registered mail more than two years after notice was received. See Sevigny v. Dowd, 343 Mass. 160, 161-162 (1961). In such a situation the provisions of the clause of the lease requiring notice by registered mail are satisfied by notice sent by certified mail, return receipt requested. Courts in other jurisdictions have held that a clause in a lease requiring notice by registered mail is satisfied by certified mail ( 243 So. Harrison St. Corp. v. Ogust, 113 N.J. Super. 74), or even by ordinary mail ( East Eighty-Second St. Corp. v. Rogers, 192 App. Div. [N.Y.]633, 638-639 [1920]). See also Joseph Steier, Inc. v. New York, 65 Misc.2d (N.Y.) 296, 297 (1970); D. L. Enterprises, Inc. v. Davenport, 29 Utah 2d 201, 202 (1973); Miami Beach Vacations, Inc. v. Wofford, 262 So.2d 683 (Fla. 1972). Statutory requirements of notice by registered mail perform a similar function of providing a method of resolving disputes regarding delivery of notice, and such requirements are satisfied in Massachusetts by certified (G.L.c. 4, § 7, Forty-fourth), or even by ordinary mail ( Sevigny v. Dowd, supra). See also Fleisher Engr. Constr. Co. v. United States, 311 U.S. 15, 19 (1940); United States v. Kagan, 129 F. Supp. 331, 332 (D. Mass. 1955). In the present circumstances the differences between registered and certified mail (see 39 C.F.R., Parts 161, 168) are of no consequence ( Durkin v. Siegel, 340 Mass. 445, 448, fn. 4 [1960]) and did not prevent effective renewal of the lease by the plaintiff tenant.

Decree affirmed.


Summaries of

Gerson Realty Inc. v. Casaly

Appeals Court of Massachusetts
Sep 30, 1974
2 Mass. App. Ct. 875 (Mass. App. Ct. 1974)

nonconforming notice was effective even though lease specified that notice "shall not be deemed to have been duly given or served unless in writing and forwarded by registered mail"

Summary of this case from Sourcing Unlimited, Inc. v. Cummings Props.

In Gerson, the court held that an option to renew was effectively exercised where the optionee sent notice by certified mail despite the fact that the lease specified that notice shall be sent by registered mail.

Summary of this case from Cummings Prop. v. Eaton Corp., No
Case details for

Gerson Realty Inc. v. Casaly

Case Details

Full title:GERSON REALTY INC. vs. JOHN L. CASALY

Court:Appeals Court of Massachusetts

Date published: Sep 30, 1974

Citations

2 Mass. App. Ct. 875 (Mass. App. Ct. 1974)
316 N.E.2d 767

Citing Cases

Sourcing Unlimited, Inc. v. Cummings Props.

See Pear v. Davenport, 67 Mass. App. Ct. 239, 240-241, 853 N.E.2d 206 (2006) (tenant's option to purchase);…

Suss Pontiac-GMC, Inc. v. Boddicker

In most cases, they intend nothing more than to forestall disputes about timeliness and actual delivery. See…