From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Thomas-Mack, Inc. v. Ursula Holding Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 3, 1958
5 A.D.2d 837 (N.Y. App. Div. 1958)

Opinion

February 3, 1958


In an action by a tenant against a landlord to recover for property damage alleged to have been sustained when a water pipe broke, flooding the tenant's premises, the landlord appeals from an order striking out the affirmative defense pleaded in its answer. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. The defense pleads certain provisions of a lease which purport to exempt appellant from liability for damages alleged to have been caused by its negligence in the operation of the demised premises, and which are consequently void and unenforcible (Real Property Law, § 234). Reversal is not required because appellant has pleaded in addition to the allegations with respect to the provisions of the lease other facts which are repetitions of denials contained in its answer. (Cf. Zirn v. Bradley, 268 App. Div. 1063; Schiff v. Schiff, 270 App. Div. 845; Italian Cook Oil Corp. v. Alderson, 274 App. Div. 802.) Nolan, P.J., Wenzel, Beldock, Murphy and Ughetta, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Thomas-Mack, Inc. v. Ursula Holding Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 3, 1958
5 A.D.2d 837 (N.Y. App. Div. 1958)
Case details for

Thomas-Mack, Inc. v. Ursula Holding Corp.

Case Details

Full title:THOMAS-MACK, INC., Respondent, v. URSULA HOLDING CORP., Appellant

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

Date published: Feb 3, 1958

Citations

5 A.D.2d 837 (N.Y. App. Div. 1958)

Citing Cases

Polychrome Corporation v. Lithotech Corp.

They did not tend to clarify the issues and appellants were not prejudiced by the granting of the motion.…