Martin Holding, Inc. v. Bard

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Martin Holding, Inc. v. Bard

191 Misc. 1004, 80 N.Y.S.2d 29, 1948 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2475

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedApril 29, 1948

StatusPublished

This text of 191 Misc. 1004 (Martin Holding, Inc. v. Bard) 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

Martin Holding, Inc. v. Bard, 191 Misc. 1004, 80 N.Y.S.2d 29, 1948 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2475 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

There is no express covenant in the lease under which the tenant went into possession, which required landlord to make repairs. As a statutory tenant, landlord’s rights and obligations are those fixed by the lease. Failure of the landlord to comply with the regulations of the Office of Price Administration with respect to painting might justify an application for a reduction in rent, but would not support an action ex contractu for painting done by the tenant.

The final order should be modified to the extent of dismissing the counterclaim and increasing the amount granted in favor of landlord to the sum of $200, with interest and costs, and as modified affirmed, with $25 costs to appellant.

Church and Hecht, JJ., concur; Hofstadter, J., dissents.

Ordered accordingly.

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

Per Curiam.

There is no express covenant in the lease under which the tenant went into possession, which required landlord to make repairs. As a statutory tenant, landlord’s rights and obligations are those fixed by the lease. Failure of the landlord to comply with the regulations of the Office of Price Administration with respect to painting might justify an application for a reduction in rent, but would not support an action ex contractu for painting done by the tenant.

The final order should be modified to the extent of dismissing the counterclaim and increasing the amount granted in favor of landlord to the sum of $200, with interest and costs, and as modified affirmed, with $25 costs to appellant.

Church and Hecht, JJ., concur; Hofstadter, J., dissents.

Ordered accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 Misc. 1004, 80 N.Y.S.2d 29, 1948 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2475, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-holding-inc-v-bard-nyappterm-1948.