Cohen v. Afro-American Realty Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Cohen v. Afro-American Realty Co.

58 Misc. 199, 108 N.Y.S. 998

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided March 15, 1908·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Bischoff, J.

Obviously the provision of the lease that the filing of any legal process against the tenant “ shall cause this lease immediately thereafter to oea.se and come to an end” was inserted wholly for'the benefit of the landlord; and the mere fact that process against the tenant was filed, at some person’s instance, could not relieve him from his obligation to pay rent, unless, by some act which affected the possession, the landlord signified his intention to avail himself of this condition of the lease. Such a condition could be no more self-executing, at the tenant’s election, than would a provision terminating the lease for nonpayment of rent. See Rede v. Farr, 6 Maule & S. 121; Roehmer v. Knickerbocker Life Ins. Co., 63 N. Y. 160, 166. And, since no actual termination was proven in the present case, the fact of the filing of process did not amount to a defense.

The plaintiff’s recovery is unassailable, and the judgment is, therefore, affirmed, with costs.

Gilkersleeve and MacLeau, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.'

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

Bischoff, J.

Obviously the provision of the lease that the filing of any legal process against the tenant “ shall cause this lease immediately thereafter to oea.se and come to an end” was inserted wholly for'the benefit of the landlord; and the mere fact that process against the tenant was filed, at some person’s instance, could not relieve him from his obligation to pay rent, unless, by some act which affected the possession, the landlord signified his intention to avail himself of this condition of the lease. Such a condition could be no more self-executing, at the tenant’s election, than would a provision terminating the lease for nonpayment of rent. See Rede v. Farr, 6 Maule & S. 121; Roehmer v. Knickerbocker Life Ins. Co., 63 N. Y. 160, 166. And, since no actual termination was proven in the present case, the fact of the filing of process did not amount to a defense.

The plaintiff’s recovery is unassailable, and the judgment is, therefore, affirmed, with costs.

Gilkersleeve and MacLeau, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.'

Cohen v. Afro-American Realty Co., 58 Misc. 199, 108 N.Y.S. 998 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1908).

Pincite

58 Misc. 199 (Cohen v. Afro-American Realty Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related