From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sarner v. Kantor

Supreme Court, New York Special Term
Jun 30, 1924
123 Misc. 469 (N.Y. Misc. 1924)

Opinion

June 30, 1924.

Phillips Avery ( Talbot M. Malcolm, of counsel), for the plaintiff.

Pfeiffer Crames ( Harold Pfeiffer and Harold Cohn, of counsel), for the defendant.


Defendant lessor moves to dismiss the lessee's complaint for insufficiency in law. The lease provided: " Fourth. That the tenant shall not assign or sublet this agreement, or underlet or underlease the premises * * * without the landlord's written consent first had and obtained * * *. Nothing herein contained shall permit the landlord to unreasonably withhold his consent to any sublease." Plaintiff alleges unreasonable refusal to consent to a sublease and demands damages and the return of the deposit under the lease.

Plaintiff cannot recover unless this 4th clause is a covenant by defendant not unreasonably to withhold his consent to a sublease. The purpose of the provision is to protect the lessee against liability for damages or risk of forfeiture if consent of the lessor is improperly withheld. 1 Tiffany Landl. Ten. § 152, p. 933; 2 Underhill Landl. Ten. § 632, p. 1063. Nowhere does the lessor expressly covenant not to withhold his consent unreasonably. The only covenant is by plaintiff not to sublet, and it is plaintiff's own covenant that is qualified by the condition that the lessor shall not unreasonably withhold his consent. The cases of Sear v. House Prop. Inv. Soc., L.R. (1880-81) 16 Ch. Div. 387, and Treloar v. Bigge, L.R. (1873-74) 9 Exch. 151, are controlling.

Plaintiff urges that this construction imposes upon the lessee the risk of forfeiture if he subleased and points out the practical difficulty of finding a sublessee under such circumstances. Young v. Ashley Gardens Properties, Ltd., L.R. (1903) 2 Ch. Div. 112, shows the remedy. There plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment that defendant had no right to withhold consent. Cozens-Hardy, L.J., writes: "I cannot imagine a more judicious or beneficial exercise of the jurisdiction to make a declaratory order than that which has been adopted * * * in this case." Under section 473 of the Civil Practice Act, plaintiff may, if the facts warrant, secure a similar declaration in the instant case.

Judgment for defendant.

Ordered accordingly; judgment accordingly.


Summaries of

Sarner v. Kantor

Supreme Court, New York Special Term
Jun 30, 1924
123 Misc. 469 (N.Y. Misc. 1924)
Case details for

Sarner v. Kantor

Case Details

Full title:MAX SARNER, Plaintiff, v . ADOLPHE KANTOR, Defendant

Court:Supreme Court, New York Special Term

Date published: Jun 30, 1924

Citations

123 Misc. 469 (N.Y. Misc. 1924)
205 N.Y.S. 760

Citing Cases

Kruger v. Page

In New York, even absent statutory intervention, where a lease provision stated that landlord's prior written…

Butterick Pub. Co. v. Fulton Elm Leasing

Plaintiff brings this action to secure a declaratory judgment as to the rights of the parties in respect to…