Dixon v. 410 Park Avenue Corp.

New York Supreme Court

Dixon v. 410 Park Avenue Corp.

11 Misc. 2d 767, 175 N.Y.S.2d 968, 1958 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3306

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedMay 20, 1958

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 11 Misc. 2d 767 (Dixon v. 410 Park Avenue Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dixon v. 410 Park Avenue Corp., 11 Misc. 2d 767, 175 N.Y.S.2d 968, 1958 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3306 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

Samuel M. Gold, J.

In Morris v. Flint & Bradley (277 App. Div. 1025, affg. 99 N. Y. S. 2d 126), the plaintiff tenant was [768]*768willing to surrender possession in the event that his agreement to do so was upheld as valid. He did not take the position that the agreement was illegal and that he therefore could not be compelled to vacate. The holding was, nevertheless, that the agreement was void and unenforcible. That decision is controlling here, notwithstanding the fact that the present plaintiff actually vacated the premises. The illegal agreement could not be made legal by plaintiff’s performance thereof. The plaintiff’s contention that the provisions of the State Rent and Eviction Regulations, forbidding a waiver by a tenant, were for the benefit of tenants and, therefore, may be waived by tenants is not without considerable force. Unfortunately, however, the decision in Morris v. Flint & Bradley (supra) refusing to permit the tenant in that case to enforce the landlord’s agreement, requires the dismissal of the present complaint.

Motion granted.

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

Samuel M. Gold, J.

In Morris v. Flint & Bradley (277 App. Div. 1025, affg. 99 N. Y. S. 2d 126), the plaintiff tenant was [768]*768willing to surrender possession in the event that his agreement to do so was upheld as valid. He did not take the position that the agreement was illegal and that he therefore could not be compelled to vacate. The holding was, nevertheless, that the agreement was void and unenforcible. That decision is controlling here, notwithstanding the fact that the present plaintiff actually vacated the premises. The illegal agreement could not be made legal by plaintiff’s performance thereof. The plaintiff’s contention that the provisions of the State Rent and Eviction Regulations, forbidding a waiver by a tenant, were for the benefit of tenants and, therefore, may be waived by tenants is not without considerable force. Unfortunately, however, the decision in Morris v. Flint & Bradley (supra) refusing to permit the tenant in that case to enforce the landlord’s agreement, requires the dismissal of the present complaint.

Motion granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 Misc. 2d 767, 175 N.Y.S.2d 968, 1958 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3306, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dixon-v-410-park-avenue-corp-nysupct-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack