Gaggiano v. Giallorenzi

57 N.Y.S. 2
CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
DecidedMarch 24, 1899
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 57 N.Y.S. 2 (Gaggiano v. Giallorenzi) 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
Gaggiano v. Giallorenzi, 57 N.Y.S. 2 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1899).

Opinion

FREEDMAN, P. J.

This is a summary proceeding taken by the plaintiff, as landlord, against the defendant, as tenant, to remove the defendant from certain .premises described in the petition, on the ground that the tenant holds over after the expiration of his term. The lease under which the tenant claimed to hold the premises was for the term of three years from January 1, 1899, and contained this provision: “The party of the first part agrees to renew this lease at the expiration thereof for another term of two years, at the rental herein-before stated.” The legal implication is that this was to be done at the tenant’s request, and in a manner binding upon the parties. The lease expired January 1, 1899, and it is undisputed that notice of its expiration was given by the landlord. Upon the trial the burden of proof rested upon the tenant to show that he gave a proper notice or made a proper request for a renewal of the lease in a manner binding upon the parties. No written notice to that effect was given. The only evidence upon this point consists of a conversation which the son of the tenant testified he had with the landlord in December, 1898, but his testimony shows that what he said to the landlord was more in the nature of an inquiry than an unconditional notice or request for a renewal of the lease in a binding form. Moreover, the landlord denied that any such conversation had ever taken place. At most, there-" fore, the case presents a conflict of evidence, which the court below determined in favor of the landlord, and, as it does not appear that [3]*3injustice has been done, such determination should not be interfered with.

Order affirmed, with costs. All concur.

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

Related

Goldberg v. Housing Auth. of City of Newark
186 A.2d 291 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1962)
Fidelity Union Trust Co. v. Byrne
184 A.2d 163 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1962)
McCappin v. Park Capitol Corp.
126 A.2d 51 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1956)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
57 N.Y.S. 2, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gaggiano-v-giallorenzi-nyappterm-1899.