Kopelman v. Gritman

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Kopelman v. Gritman

76 Misc. 188, 136 N.Y.S. 296

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMarch 15, 1912

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 76 Misc. 188 (Kopelman v. Gritman) 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

Kopelman v. Gritman, 76 Misc. 188, 136 N.Y.S. 296 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Stapletoh, J.

The plaintiff in this action seeks to recover the sum of seventy-five dollars paid by him on the 22d day of November, 1910, as the first instalment of rent under a lease made on that day between the defendant, as lessor, and the plaintiff, as lessee, for the term of one year, at the yearly rent of $900, payable in equal monthly payments of $75 on the first day of each and every month.

.Upon the 1st day of December, 1910, the day fixed for the commencement of the term, the plaintiff, upon seeking to obtain possession of the premises, found that they were in occupation of the defendant, through persons employed by him, or contracting with him, engaged in making substantial repairs requiring the services of painters; carpenters and other workmen, and that materials and implements of substantial bulk cumbered the premises.

There was evidence from which the trial court could properly make the finding that this condition of affairs continued to the 10th day of December, 1910.

Upon the premises demised was a dwelling house.

No agreement existed between the lessor and the lessee in relation to the making of the repairs.

The defendant agreed to let the premises to the plaintiff on the 1st day of December, 1910. .

That agreement carried with it the obligation that the lessor would by no act of his prevent the lessee from entering upon and occupying the premises on the day fixed; and upon his failure to deliver possession — his conduct alone standing in the way — the plaintiff had a right to rescind the contract and to recover from the defendant the consideration advanced. Mansfield v. New York Central & H. R. R. Co., 102 N. Y. 205, 211; McGaunten v. Wilbur, 1 Cow. 257; Trull v. Granger, 8 N. Y. 115, 117; Wood v. Hubbell, 10 id. 479, 487; Harris v. Greenberger, 50 App. Div. 439, 440; Pough & Co. v. Cerimedo, 44 Misc. Rep. 246; Meyers v. Liebeskind, 46 id. 272; Bailey v. Krupp, 59 id. 459; Garrison v. Hutton, 118 App. Div. 455, 456.

Garretsoh and Rapper, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

Stapletoh, J.

The plaintiff in this action seeks to recover the sum of seventy-five dollars paid by him on the 22d day of November, 1910, as the first instalment of rent under a lease made on that day between the defendant, as lessor, and the plaintiff, as lessee, for the term of one year, at the yearly rent of $900, payable in equal monthly payments of $75 on the first day of each and every month.

.Upon the 1st day of December, 1910, the day fixed for the commencement of the term, the plaintiff, upon seeking to obtain possession of the premises, found that they were in occupation of the defendant, through persons employed by him, or contracting with him, engaged in making substantial repairs requiring the services of painters; carpenters and other workmen, and that materials and implements of substantial bulk cumbered the premises.

There was evidence from which the trial court could properly make the finding that this condition of affairs continued to the 10th day of December, 1910.

Upon the premises demised was a dwelling house.

No agreement existed between the lessor and the lessee in relation to the making of the repairs.

The defendant agreed to let the premises to the plaintiff on the 1st day of December, 1910. .

That agreement carried with it the obligation that the lessor would by no act of his prevent the lessee from entering upon and occupying the premises on the day fixed; and upon his failure to deliver possession — his conduct alone standing in the way — the plaintiff had a right to rescind the contract and to recover from the defendant the consideration advanced. Mansfield v. New York Central & H. R. R. Co., 102 N. Y. 205, 211; McGaunten v. Wilbur, 1 Cow. 257; Trull v. Granger, 8 N. Y. 115, 117; Wood v. Hubbell, 10 id. 479, 487; Harris v. Greenberger, 50 App. Div. 439, 440; Pough & Co. v. Cerimedo, 44 Misc. Rep. 246; Meyers v. Liebeskind, 46 id. 272; Bailey v. Krupp, 59 id. 459; Garrison v. Hutton, 118 App. Div. 455, 456.

Garretsoh and Rapper, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 Misc. 188, 136 N.Y.S. 296, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kopelman-v-gritman-nyappterm-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack