Four Eighteen Central Park West Corp. v. Lautenbach

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Four Eighteen Central Park West Corp. v. Lautenbach

133 Misc. 189, 231 N.Y.S. 377, 1928 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1122

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 21, 1928

StatusPublished

This text of 133 Misc. 189 (Four Eighteen Central Park West Corp. v. Lautenbach) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Four Eighteen Central Park West Corp. v. Lautenbach, 133 Misc. 189, 231 N.Y.S. 377, 1928 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1122 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Although the action was based on the existence of a lease between plaintiff and defendant, not only did plaintiff fail to prove the delivery of a lease but the meagre evidence presented negatived any such delivery. The trial judge erred in ruling that the only way to prove the authority of the so-called agent was by his principal, for the acts of any agent with respect to the subject-matter of the agency, performed with the knowledge of his principal, may be considered in determining the extent of his authority.

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with thirty dollars costs to appellant to abide the event.

All concur; present, Delehanty, Lydon and Chain, JJ.

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

Per Curiam.

Although the action was based on the existence of a lease between plaintiff and defendant, not only did plaintiff fail to prove the delivery of a lease but the meagre evidence presented negatived any such delivery. The trial judge erred in ruling that the only way to prove the authority of the so-called agent was by his principal, for the acts of any agent with respect to the subject-matter of the agency, performed with the knowledge of his principal, may be considered in determining the extent of his authority.

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with thirty dollars costs to appellant to abide the event.

All concur; present, Delehanty, Lydon and Chain, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 Misc. 189, 231 N.Y.S. 377, 1928 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1122, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/four-eighteen-central-park-west-corp-v-lautenbach-nyappterm-1928.