Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Hellinger

3 N.E.2d 621, 272 N.Y. 24, 1936 N.Y. LEXIS 861
New York Court of Appeals·Decided July 8, 1936·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We do not reach the question of what defendant’s obligations, if any, would have been had there been a mere technical surrender of the master lease and nothing more. The terms of the agreement of September 13, 1930, clearly and as matter of law disclose an intent that the subleases were to be kept alive and that the owner should stand in the shoes of the defendant’s immediate lessor. In effect there was an assignment of the subleases. Any narrower interpretation would be inequitable. Under such circumstances the doctrine of merger is inapplicable. (Beal v. Boston Car Spring Co., *27 125 Mass. 157; Appleton v. Ames, 150 Mass. 34; cf. 13 Columbia Law Rev. 245.)

The order should be affirmed, with costs, and the question certified answered in the negative.

Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Grouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed.

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

Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Hellinger, 3 N.E.2d 621, 272 N.Y. 24, 1936 N.Y. LEXIS 861 (N.Y. 1936).

3 N.E.2d 621 (Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Hellinger) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Benderson v. Computer Task Group, Inc.
216 A.D.2d 922 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
In re Monetary Group
73 B.R. 630 (M.D. Florida, 1987)
Lippe v. Professional Surgical Supply Co.
132 Misc. 2d 293 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1986)
Futterman v. South African Airways
126 Misc. 2d 90 (New York Supreme Court, 1984)
Precision Dynamics Corp. v. Retailers Representatives, Inc.
120 Misc. 2d 180 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1983)
Mutual Drug Co. v. Sewall
182 S.W.2d 575 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1944)
Bond, Mortgage & Securities Co. v. Surplus Wholesale Corp.
162 Misc. 586 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1937)