Bantjo v. Clark

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Bantjo v. Clark

88 N.Y.S. 135

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 5, 1904

StatusPublished

This text of 88 N.Y.S. 135 (Bantjo v. Clark) 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

Bantjo v. Clark, 88 N.Y.S. 135 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

GREENBAUM, J.

The facts show that the appellant was a tenant 30-days notice upon his client would effect a termination of the tenancy on the date therein fixed. The petition and proofs amply justified the granting of an order awarding possession of the premises to the landlord for a holding over beyond the tenant’s term. Appellant claims, however, that the proceedings were not maintainable, because they were brought on two inconsistent grounds—the one for a holding over, the other for nonpayment of -rent. It is true that the petition contains a number of allegations relating to the failure of the tenant to pay rent, but' they were superfluous, and may well be treated as surplusage. As to whether or not the subsequent demand for rent was a waiver of the landlord’s rights under the notice to quit was a question of intention, to be,determined by the court below, and his finding in that respect should not be disturbed.

The order in summary proceedings is affirmed, with costs. All concur.

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

GREENBAUM, J.

The facts show that the appellant was a tenant 30-days notice upon his client would effect a termination of the tenancy on the date therein fixed. The petition and proofs amply justified the granting of an order awarding possession of the premises to the landlord for a holding over beyond the tenant’s term. Appellant claims, however, that the proceedings were not maintainable, because they were brought on two inconsistent grounds—the one for a holding over, the other for nonpayment of -rent. It is true that the petition contains a number of allegations relating to the failure of the tenant to pay rent, but' they were superfluous, and may well be treated as surplusage. As to whether or not the subsequent demand for rent was a waiver of the landlord’s rights under the notice to quit was a question of intention, to be,determined by the court below, and his finding in that respect should not be disturbed.

The order in summary proceedings is affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 N.Y.S. 135, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bantjo-v-clark-nyappterm-1904.