Fleisch v. Schnaier

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fleisch v. Schnaier

119 A.D. 815, 104 N.Y.S. 921, 1907 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3257

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 7, 1907

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 119 A.D. 815 (Fleisch v. Schnaier) 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

Fleisch v. Schnaier, 119 A.D. 815, 104 N.Y.S. 921, 1907 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3257 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

Ingraham, J.:

The plaintiff leased to the defendant the. front and back parlors of premises Eo. 664 Lexington avenue, to be Used by the defendant, the back parlor as a dental, office and the front parlor as a waiting and reception room, the plaintiff further agreeing that she would ■ not rent the basement to any tenant displaying signs, showcases or ■ articles of merchandise on the outside of the premises. This lease was to commence .on October 1, 1905, and was for two years, the ■ tenant to have the privilege of renewing the lease for three years, and for this the tenant was to pay fifty dollars a inohth. The conn plaint alleges. that the. defendant, in the month of March, 1907, threatened and told the plaintiff that he was about to sublet said' . parlor to negroes, to Chinamen, to the most, undesirable person or persons he could find, and put them in possession and occupancy • thereof at the lowest rent. The defendant does not seem to have answered any of these affidavits, but. it is quite clear that -there was ' no justification for an injunction. It is well settled that in the absence of an express restriction, either by contract or by statute, the tenant has a right to assign his lease or. sublet the premises. (Eten v. Luyster, 60 N. Y. 252; 18 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law [2d ed.], 659.) .

To entitle the plaintiff to an injunction it must appear from the-complaint that the plaintiff demands and is entitled to judgment against the defendant restraining the commission or continuance of an act, the commission or continuance of which during the pendency of the action will produce'injury to the plaintiff. ■ (Code Civ. Proc. § 603.) • .

’ As. it does not appear from this complaint that the plaintiff would be entitled toa judgment restraining the defendant from subletting the premises, a temporary injunction cannot be granted. .- It follows that the order appealed from must be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion denied, with ten dollars .costs. . ...-.<

Laughlin, Clarke,' Scott and Lambert, JJ., concurred.

Ordér reversed, with, ten dollars costs and disbursements, and ■ * motion denied, with ten dollars costs.

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

Ingraham, J.:

The plaintiff leased to the defendant the. front and back parlors of premises Eo. 664 Lexington avenue, to be Used by the defendant, the back parlor as a dental, office and the front parlor as a waiting and reception room, the plaintiff further agreeing that she would ■ not rent the basement to any tenant displaying signs, showcases or ■ articles of merchandise on the outside of the premises. This lease was to commence .on October 1, 1905, and was for two years, the ■ tenant to have the privilege of renewing the lease for three years, and for this the tenant was to pay fifty dollars a inohth. The conn plaint alleges. that the. defendant, in the month of March, 1907, threatened and told the plaintiff that he was about to sublet said' . parlor to negroes, to Chinamen, to the most, undesirable person or persons he could find, and put them in possession and occupancy • thereof at the lowest rent. The defendant does not seem to have answered any of these affidavits, but. it is quite clear that -there was ' no justification for an injunction. It is well settled that in the absence of an express restriction, either by contract or by statute, the tenant has a right to assign his lease or. sublet the premises. (Eten v. Luyster, 60 N. Y. 252; 18 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law [2d ed.], 659.) .

To entitle the plaintiff to an injunction it must appear from the-complaint that the plaintiff demands and is entitled to judgment against the defendant restraining the commission or continuance of an act, the commission or continuance of which during the pendency of the action will produce'injury to the plaintiff. ■ (Code Civ. Proc. § 603.) • .

’ As. it does not appear from this complaint that the plaintiff would be entitled toa judgment restraining the defendant from subletting the premises, a temporary injunction cannot be granted. .- It follows that the order appealed from must be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion denied, with ten dollars .costs. . ...-.<

Laughlin, Clarke,' Scott and Lambert, JJ., concurred.

Ordér reversed, with, ten dollars costs and disbursements, and ■ * motion denied, with ten dollars costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 A.D. 815, 104 N.Y.S. 921, 1907 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3257, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fleisch-v-schnaier-nyappdiv-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack