Butler v. Carillo

88 N.Y.S. 941
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided June 23, 1904·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

MacLEAN, J.

When the plaintiff rested in his action for rent, a nonsuit would have been proper, for nonpayment was not established; but, the defendant proceeding, the plaintiff had right to rely upon the statement of the defendant that the rent sued for had not been paid. Bopp v. N. Y. Electric Vehicle Co., 78 App. Div. 337, 79 N. Y. Supp. 1035. Even assuming that the facts testified to were at one time sufficient to constitute a constructive eviction, for defense they were ineffectual, for “where the right to abandon premises exists the tenant must remove with reasonable promptitude after the circumstances creating the eviction arise, and, if he fails to do só, his right to repudiate the hiring is lost.” Seaboard Realty Co. v. Fuller, 33 Misc. Rep. 109, 111, 67 N. Y. Supp. 146, 147. The verdict was therefore properly directed, and the judgment entered thereon must be affirmed. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.

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

Butler v. Carillo, 88 N.Y.S. 941 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1904).

88 N.Y.S. 941 (Butler v. Carillo) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Campbell v. Poland Spring Co.
196 A.D. 331 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1921)
Stokes v. Avila
94 Misc. 185 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1916)
Siebold v. Heyman
120 N.Y.S. 105 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1909)
Kent v. Ward
111 N.Y.S. 743 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1908)