A. S. J. Building Co. v. Deixel

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

A. S. J. Building Co. v. Deixel

151 Misc. 398, 271 N.Y.S. 674, 1934 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1303

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 4, 1934

StatusPublished

This text of 151 Misc. 398 (A. S. J. Building Co. v. Deixel) 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

A. S. J. Building Co. v. Deixel, 151 Misc. 398, 271 N.Y.S. 674, 1934 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1303 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

As the tenant had not given the stipulated two months* notice of his intention to surrender the premises July 31, 1932, the date of the expiration of the lease, the landlord was given the option to extend and renew the lease for a further period of one year. We think that the landlord’s option should have been manifested before the end of the term, especially in view of the evidence that the landlord had been orally notified in April or May, 1932, that the tenant would vacate the premises at the end of the term; and that the letter dated August 12, 1932, twelve days after the expiration of the term and after the tenant had removed from the premises, was ineffective. (Sylvan Mortgage Co. v. Astruck, 205 App. Div. 455; 2 Williston Cont. p. 1715.)

Judgment reversed, with costs, and judgment directed for the defendant, with costs.

All concur; present, Hammer, Callahan and Shientag, JJ.

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

Per Curiam.

As the tenant had not given the stipulated two months* notice of his intention to surrender the premises July 31, 1932, the date of the expiration of the lease, the landlord was given the option to extend and renew the lease for a further period of one year. We think that the landlord’s option should have been manifested before the end of the term, especially in view of the evidence that the landlord had been orally notified in April or May, 1932, that the tenant would vacate the premises at the end of the term; and that the letter dated August 12, 1932, twelve days after the expiration of the term and after the tenant had removed from the premises, was ineffective. (Sylvan Mortgage Co. v. Astruck, 205 App. Div. 455; 2 Williston Cont. p. 1715.)

Judgment reversed, with costs, and judgment directed for the defendant, with costs.

All concur; present, Hammer, Callahan and Shientag, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

151 Misc. 398, 271 N.Y.S. 674, 1934 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1303, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/a-s-j-building-co-v-deixel-nyappterm-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack