Dixon v. 410 Park Avenue Corp.

11 Misc. 2d 767, 175 N.Y.S.2d 968, 1958 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3306
New York Supreme Court·Decided May 20, 1958·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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] willing 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

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).

11 Misc. 2d 767 (Dixon v. 410 Park Avenue Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Grasso v. Matarazzo
180 Misc. 2d 686 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Merwest Realty Corp. v. Prager
173 Misc. 2d 868 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1997)