Davis v. Bonds

61 Misc. 2d 917, 307 N.Y.S.2d 392, 1969 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1086
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided November 12, 1969·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In the absence of a judicial determination that the prime lease was terminated, or absent proof that the sub-lessor had abandoned the premises, it was improper to dismiss the sublessor’s nonpayment proceedings against the subtenants. (Bruder v. Geisler, 47 Misc. 370 [App. Term]; Bone v. Coppola, 45 Misc. 636; 34 N. Y. Jur., Landlord and Tenant, § 269.)

Upon a new trial there should be a fuller development of the proof with respect to the affirmative defense of cancellation. In this connection, the subtenants may be well advised to implead the prime landlord as a third-party defendant.

The judgment should be unanimously reversed, without costs, and a new trial ordered.

Groat, P. J., Schwartzwald and Margbtt, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, etc.

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

Davis v. Bonds, 61 Misc. 2d 917, 307 N.Y.S.2d 392, 1969 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1086 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

61 Misc. 2d 917 (Davis v. Bonds) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bove v. Coppola
45 Misc. 636 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1904)
Bruder v. Geisler
47 Misc. 370 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1905)