524 West End Ave., Inc. v. Rawak

125 Misc. 862, 212 N.Y.S. 287, 1925 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1109
CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
DecidedNovember 13, 1925
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 125 Misc. 862 (524 West End Ave., Inc. v. Rawak) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
524 West End Ave., Inc. v. Rawak, 125 Misc. 862, 212 N.Y.S. 287, 1925 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1109 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1925).

Opinion

Per Curiam:

This action was brought to recover rent under a written lease for the months of January to April, 1925. It is not disputed that as part of the premises demised to defendant was “ the right, together with the tenant in the adjoining apartment to use the maid’s lavatory in the hallway,” and that subsequently the landlord deliberately leased this lavatory to another tenant for his exclusive use beginning on January 1, 1925, and that said tenant has actually excluded the plaintiff from the use thereof. The defense of actual partial eviction from a portion of the premises demised is thus established. The fact that the defendant was not able to obtain an injunction pendente lite against the other tenant’s exclusive use of this lavatory seems to us to be wholly without any bearing upon the present controversy, primarily because it does not indicate that there was any election in the juristic sense of the word by the defendant at all. (See Bank of U. S. v. National City Bank, 123 Misc. 801; affd., 214 App. Div. 716.) Secondly because the remedies are not inconsistent, indeed seem to have no relation to [863]*863one another; and in this connection it is clear that the tenant’s present position is not that the lease to him. has ceased to exist, but that the rent is suspended by reason of the landlord’s wrongful act.

Judgment reversed, with thirty dollars costs, and complaint dismissed on the merits, with costs.

All concur; present, Guy, Bijur and Mullan, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

SRM Card Shop, Inc. v. 1740 Broadway Associates
2 A.D.3d 136 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
In Re Embers 86th Street, Inc.
184 B.R. 892 (S.D. New York, 1995)
487 Elmwood, Inc. v. Hassett
107 A.D.2d 285 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
Broadway Copy Service, Inc. v. Broad-Wall Co.
77 A.D.2d 827 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1980)
Meerbaum v. Crepes D'Asie Inc.
81 Misc. 2d 842 (Nassau County District Court, 1975)
Barash v. PA. TERM. REAL ESTATE CORP.
256 N.E.2d 707 (New York Court of Appeals, 1970)
Barash v. Pennsylvania Terminal Real Estate Corp.
256 N.E.2d 707 (New York Court of Appeals, 1970)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
125 Misc. 862, 212 N.Y.S. 287, 1925 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/524-west-end-ave-inc-v-rawak-nyappterm-1925.