Haimowitz v. Lorintz
This text of 13 Misc. 2d 448 (Haimowitz v. Lorintz) 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
Plaintiff made out a prima facie case for the return of the security deposit. No accord and satisfaction resulted from the retention by plaintiff of that part of his security which was returned to him. The money returned was him own (Real Property Law, § 233) and was conceded by the defendants to be due to plaintiff in any event (Hudson v. Yonkers Fruit Co., 258 N. Y. 168; Eames Vacuum Brake Co., v. Prosser, 157 N. Y. 289).
The judgment should be unanimously reversed upon the law and facts and a new trial granted, with $30 costs to plaintiff to abide the event.
Concur — Pette, Hart and Brown, JJ.
Judgment reversed, etc.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
13 Misc. 2d 448, 180 N.Y.S.2d 780, 1958 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3107, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haimowitz-v-lorintz-nyappterm-1958.