Dassori v. Zarek

71 A.D. 538, 75 N.Y.S. 841
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 15, 1902
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 71 A.D. 538 (Dassori v. Zarek) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Dassori v. Zarek, 71 A.D. 538, 75 N.Y.S. 841 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1902).

Opinion

Jenks, J.:

The assignee of a lease is liable for the rent only for the period that he is in possession, and if he assign his term and gó out, his liability is thereupon determined. (Durand v. Curtis, 57 N. Y. 7; Childs v. Clark, 3 Barb. Ch. 52, 60; Clark v. Aldrich, 4 App. Div. 523.) This rule is subject to the exception that .if the assign[540]*540meñt to the assignee contain his express contract or covenant to pay the rent or to perform the covenants of the lease, which embrace a covenant to pay the rent, then he may be held upon his contract or covenant despite his own subsequent assignment.

The learned counsel for the appellant insists that the assignment to the defendant did contain a covenant on his part which establishes his liability. After the hahendum clause the instrument reads, “ Subject, nevertheless, to the rents, covenants, conditions and provisions therein also mentioned-.” The reference is to the original lease, which contained a covenant for the payment of rent. This precise question was decided adversely to the appellant in Wolveridge v. Steward (1 Cromp. & M. 644), and the reasoning of the court, per Denman, C. J., is. conclusive and exhaustive. (See, too, 1 McAdam Landl. & Ten. [3d ed.] § 240.)

The judgment must be affirmed, with costs.

All concurred.

Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.

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

Related

Penelko, Inc. v. John Price Associates, Inc.
642 P.2d 1229 (Utah Supreme Court, 1982)
First American National Bank of Nashville v. Chicken System of America, Inc.
616 S.W.2d 156 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1980)
Frankel v. Tremont Norman Motors Corp.
21 Misc. 2d 20 (New York Supreme Court, 1959)
Romas v. Adregna
4 A.D.2d 992 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1957)
Hart v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co.
50 N.E.2d 285 (New York Court of Appeals, 1943)
Seeburger v. Cohen
247 N.W. 292 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1933)
Mann v. . Munch Brewery
121 N.E. 746 (New York Court of Appeals, 1919)
Century Holding Co. v. Ebling Brewing Co.
185 A.D. 292 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1918)
Holtermann v. Wenzel
171 A.D. 928 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1915)
Seventy-Eighth Street & Broadway Co. v. Purssell Manufacturing Co.
92 Misc. 178 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1915)
Seventy-eighth Street & Broadway Co. v. Purssell Manufacturing Co.
166 A.D. 684 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1915)
Zinwell Co. v. Ilkovitz
83 Misc. 42 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1913)
Marone v. Hinckel Brewery Co.
126 A.D. 554 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1908)
Fechter v. Schonger
53 Misc. 648 (New York Supreme Court, 1907)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
71 A.D. 538, 75 N.Y.S. 841, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dassori-v-zarek-nyappdiv-1902.