Milton M. Senz, Inc. v. Hammer

New York Court of Appeals

Milton M. Senz, Inc. v. Hammer

193 N.E. 168, 265 N.Y. 344, 1934 N.Y. LEXIS 1042

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 20, 1934

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 193 N.E. 168 (Milton M. Senz, Inc. v. Hammer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Milton M. Senz, Inc. v. Hammer, 193 N.E. 168, 265 N.Y. 344, 1934 N.Y. LEXIS 1042 (N.Y. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The provisions of the lease are not free from obscurity but the inference must fairly be drawn that the parties contemplated the deposit as security for the performance of all the covenants and that the landlord’s agreement to repay it after the expiration of the lease was conditioned upon the tenant’s full performance. The tenant’s default renders applicable the rule announced in International Publications, Inc., v. Matchabelli (260 N. Y. 451) and Hand v. Rifkin (263 N. Y. 416).

The judgment of the Appellate Division should be reversed and that of the Special Term affirmed, with costs in this court and in the Appellate Division.

Pound, Ch. J., Crane, Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch and Loughran, JJ., concur.

Judgment accordingly.

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