Goodley Holding Corp. v. Henry
This text of 143 Misc. 321 (Goodley Holding Corp. v. Henry) 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.
Opinion
The evidence indicates that the defendant knew prior to the expiration of his lease that the plaintiff would not renew the lease on terms satisfactory to him. In view of the fact that the defendant continued to occupy the premises after the expiration of the lease, the plaintiff became entitled to treat the lease as renewed by operation of law. (Flomerfelt v. Dillon, 88 N. Y. Supp. 132.)
Judgment reversed, with thirty dollars costs, and judgment directed for plaintiff for the relief demanded in the complaint, with interest and costs.
All concur; present, Levy, Callahan and Untermyer, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
143 Misc. 321, 255 N.Y.S. 696, 1931 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1788, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goodley-holding-corp-v-henry-nyappterm-1931.