Opinion
March 9, 1949.
Present — Taylor, P.J., McCurn, Love, Kimball and Piper, JJ.
Judgment affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: The finding that appellant Hollingshead had knowledge at the time he purchased the premises of Ehrlich's possession and of the terms of the lease under which he held such possession, is amply supported by the evidence. The general rule is that actual possession of real estate is notice to all the world of the existence of any right which the person in possession is able to establish. (1 New York Law of Landlord and Tenant, § 8; Phelan v. Brady, 119 N.Y. 587; City Bank of Bayonne v. Hocke, 168 App. Div. 83; Real Property Law, § 223.) The evidence further establishes that appellant Hollingshead accepted and ratified the lease. (See Anderson v. Conner, 43 Misc. 384; United Realty Mtge. Co. v. Stoothoff, 133 App. Div. 245; Appelbaum v. Galewski, 34 Misc. 281; Matter of Di Marti, 72 Misc. 148.) All concur. (The judgment determines that a lease is valid and denies the petition to evict a tenant.)