From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Davis v. Bonds

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department
Nov 12, 1969
61 Misc. 2d 917 (N.Y. App. Term 1969)

Opinion

November 12, 1969

Appeal from the Civil Court of the City of New York, County of Queens, SEYMOUR BOYERS, J.

Milton E. Jacobowitz for appellant.

Bessie D. Goldberg for respondents.


In the absence of a judicial determination that the prime lease was terminated, or absent proof that the sublessor had abandoned the premises, it was improper to dismiss the sublessor's nonpayment proceedings against the subtenants. ( Bruder v. Geisler, 47 Misc. 370 [App. Term]; Bove v. Coppola, 45 Misc. 636; 34 N.Y. Jur., Landlord and Tenant, § 269.)

Upon a new trial there should be a fuller development of the proof with respect to the affirmative defense of cancellation. In this connection, the subtenants may be well advised to implead the prime landlord as a third-party defendant.

The judgment should be unanimously reversed, without costs, and a new trial ordered.

GROAT, P.J., SCHWARTZWALD and MARGETT, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, etc.


Summaries of

Davis v. Bonds

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department
Nov 12, 1969
61 Misc. 2d 917 (N.Y. App. Term 1969)
Case details for

Davis v. Bonds

Case Details

Full title:CHARLES DAVIS, Appellant, v. CHARLES BONDS et al., Respondents

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department

Date published: Nov 12, 1969

Citations

61 Misc. 2d 917 (N.Y. App. Term 1969)
307 N.Y.S.2d 392

Citing Cases

Rahi v. Nehari

However, upon proof that a sublessor has abandoned the premises, the Court shall dismiss a summary proceeding…