Loft v. Guide Realty Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Loft v. Guide Realty Co.

241 A.D. 606

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 15, 1934

StatusPublished

This text of 241 A.D. 606 (Loft v. Guide Realty Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Loft v. Guide Realty Co., 241 A.D. 606 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Order granting motion for an injunction pendente lite reversed on the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied. We are of opinion that this case is governed by Mann v. Munch Brewery (225 N. Y. 189) and International Publications v. Matchabelli (260 id. 451), and not by Hermitage Co. v. Levine (248 id. 333). The ninth paragraph of the lease clearly provides for reletting after summary proceedings, and an application of the proceeds to the “ rent due,” as comprehended in the Munch Brewery Case (supra), and not for “ damages ” as was the situation in the Hermitage Co. Case (supra). The security'which is sought to be applied is to accrued rent, the amount of which has been reduced to judgment. Young, Kapper, Carswell and Davis, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., concurs in result.

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

Order granting motion for an injunction pendente lite reversed on the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied. We are of opinion that this case is governed by Mann v. Munch Brewery (225 N. Y. 189) and International Publications v. Matchabelli (260 id. 451), and not by Hermitage Co. v. Levine (248 id. 333). The ninth paragraph of the lease clearly provides for reletting after summary proceedings, and an application of the proceeds to the “ rent due,” as comprehended in the Munch Brewery Case (supra), and not for “ damages ” as was the situation in the Hermitage Co. Case (supra). The security'which is sought to be applied is to accrued rent, the amount of which has been reduced to judgment. Young, Kapper, Carswell and Davis, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., concurs in result.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

241 A.D. 606, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/loft-v-guide-realty-co-nyappdiv-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack