Kaufman v. Bartels

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Kaufman v. Bartels

182 Misc. 128, 50 N.Y.S.2d 568, 1944 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2380

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 29, 1944

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 182 Misc. 128 (Kaufman v. Bartels) 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

Kaufman v. Bartels, 182 Misc. 128, 50 N.Y.S.2d 568, 1944 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2380 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum Per Cotriaon.

The exchange of telegrams did not effect a renewal of the pre-existing lease (Pomeroy v. Newell No. 2, 117 App. Div. 800, 804; Slagel v. Huff, 166 Misc. 168, 171, affd. 254 App. Div. 925, motion for leave to appeal denied 279 N. Y. 813). The tenant, by retaining possession after expiration of the lease, is deemed to have agreed to the landlord’s terms as expressed in the proposed renewal lease (McKee v. Fredke. Loeser & Co., Inc., No. 66, April, 1932, Term), and consequently the landlord was under no obligation to comply with the provisions of the original lease with relation to the vedeeoration of a portion of the apartment and the allowances against the rent. This determination is without prejudice to any rights which the tenant may have under the terms of the reletting.

[130]*130The final order should he modified upon the law by increasing the award in the landlord’s favor to the sum of $165, together with appropriate costs in the court below and dismissing the counterclaim on the merits, and as so modified affirmed, with ten dollars costs to the landlord.

MacCrate, Smith and Steihbrihk, JJ., concur.

Ordered accordingly.

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

Memorandum Per Cotriaon.

The exchange of telegrams did not effect a renewal of the pre-existing lease (Pomeroy v. Newell No. 2, 117 App. Div. 800, 804; Slagel v. Huff, 166 Misc. 168, 171, affd. 254 App. Div. 925, motion for leave to appeal denied 279 N. Y. 813). The tenant, by retaining possession after expiration of the lease, is deemed to have agreed to the landlord’s terms as expressed in the proposed renewal lease (McKee v. Fredke. Loeser & Co., Inc., No. 66, April, 1932, Term), and consequently the landlord was under no obligation to comply with the provisions of the original lease with relation to the vedeeoration of a portion of the apartment and the allowances against the rent. This determination is without prejudice to any rights which the tenant may have under the terms of the reletting.

[130]*130The final order should he modified upon the law by increasing the award in the landlord’s favor to the sum of $165, together with appropriate costs in the court below and dismissing the counterclaim on the merits, and as so modified affirmed, with ten dollars costs to the landlord.

MacCrate, Smith and Steihbrihk, JJ., concur.

Ordered accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 Misc. 128, 50 N.Y.S.2d 568, 1944 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2380, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kaufman-v-bartels-nyappterm-1944.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack