From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Philip Realty Construction Co. v. Chubin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 10, 1909
135 App. Div. 766 (N.Y. App. Div. 1909)

Opinion

December 10, 1909.

Bernard Fliashnick, for the appellant.

M. Angelo Elias, for the respondent.


The petition herein was made by one Leizerkowitz, claiming to be an authorized agent of the Philip Realty and Construction Company, which was alleged to be the owner of the property and the appellant's landlord, under a written agreement, by which the appellant leased of said company on April 1, 1909, the premises he was in possession of, and agreed to pay said company rent therefor of fifteen dollars a month in advance, and it is claimed that he was in default for the month of May. These allegations of the petition being denied, it was incumbent upon the company to establish them by evidence upon the trial before it was entitled to judgment. No proof of ownership or of the making of any lease with the appellant was made, and the refusal of the Municipal Court justice to dismiss the petition upon appellant's motion when the respondent rested its case was error.

The judgment of the Municipal Court should be reversed and a new trial ordered, costs to abide the event.

WOODWARD, JENKS, BURR and MILLER, JJ., concurred.

Judgment of the Municipal Court reversed and new trial ordered, costs to abide the event.


Summaries of

Philip Realty Construction Co. v. Chubin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 10, 1909
135 App. Div. 766 (N.Y. App. Div. 1909)
Case details for

Philip Realty Construction Co. v. Chubin

Case Details

Full title:PHILIP REALTY AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Respondent, v . BENJAMIN CHUBIN…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Dec 10, 1909

Citations

135 App. Div. 766 (N.Y. App. Div. 1909)
119 N.Y.S. 924

Citing Cases

Miressi v. Funicello

Material allegations of the petition having been denied by the tenants' answer, it was incumbent upon the…