From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Messer v. Smith

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department
Jan 22, 1925
125 Misc. 845 (N.Y. App. Term 1925)

Opinion

January 22, 1925.

Samuel Goldstein, for the appellant.

Fred M. Wolf, for the respondent.


Judgment and order unanimously reversed upon the law and new trial granted, with thirty dollars costs to the appellant to abide the event.

The rent under the terms of the lease was payable on the first day of May. When the defendant moved on the twenty-seventh of May, he was obligated to pay that rent. The only counterclaim which he interposed was for the return of the deposit.

If the premises were rendered untenantable by the fire, the landlord had a reasonable time within which to repair the same. At the expiration of such reasonable time, if the landlord failed to make the repairs, the tenant could leave the premises ( Nimmo v. Harway, 23 Misc. 126), but, since he waited until after the rent was due, he must pay the rent for the full month. ( Progress Corporation v. Chassman, 188 N.Y.S. 406.)

It was, therefore, error to allow the plaintiff any deduction for the days in May when he was not in possession. Moreover, there was no proof that the deposit which he made under the lease ever came into the possession of the plaintiff. The judgment, therefore, in defendant's favor for the amount of the deposit was not warranted. ( Fallert Brewing Company, Limited, v. Blass, 119 A.D. 53.)

Present: CROPSEY, LAZANSKY and MacCRATE, JJ.


Summaries of

Messer v. Smith

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department
Jan 22, 1925
125 Misc. 845 (N.Y. App. Term 1925)
Case details for

Messer v. Smith

Case Details

Full title:ABRAHAM MESSER, Appellant, v . "MORRIS" J. SMITH, First Name "MORRIS…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department

Date published: Jan 22, 1925

Citations

125 Misc. 845 (N.Y. App. Term 1925)
211 N.Y.S. 494

Citing Cases

Langley v. Batchelder

VI. As before stated, the parties agree that the land was unimproved and that there were no buildings upon…

Eastman v. Thayer

That the collector who made the sale was such will be assumed in the absence of any averment to the contrary.…