Neusberger v. Brodejefsky

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Neusberger v. Brodejefsky

31 Misc. 749, 64 N.Y.S. 131

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedApril 15, 1900

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 31 Misc. 749 (Neusberger v. Brodejefsky) 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

Neusberger v. Brodejefsky, 31 Misc. 749, 64 N.Y.S. 131 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The appellant is a party to summary proceedings instituted to recover the possession of certain real property situate in the borough of Manhattan, upon the ground that the tenant’s term therein has expired. The petition alleges that the appellant is an under-tenant, and as such continued in possession of the demised premises after the expiration of such term, without ' the permission of the landlord thereof. Hence he' had the right to file an answer and to defend the proceedings. Code Civ. Pro., § 2244; People ex rel. Jacks v. Callahan, 8 Week. Dig. 298. The appellant filed an answer denying the allegations of the petition respecting the hiring of the premises by the tenant, and that the latter’s term therein has expired. Thus there devolved upon the landlord the burden of proving the averments so controverted, which he wholly failed to do. The return fails to disclose any proof whatever in support of such allegations, or of an admission thereof on the part of the appellant during the course of the trial.

There being a total failure of proof with respect to material allegations of the petition, the final order must be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Present: Beekman, P. J., Giegerioh and O’Gorman, JJ.

Order reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.

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

Per Curiam.

The appellant is a party to summary proceedings instituted to recover the possession of certain real property situate in the borough of Manhattan, upon the ground that the tenant’s term therein has expired. The petition alleges that the appellant is an under-tenant, and as such continued in possession of the demised premises after the expiration of such term, without ' the permission of the landlord thereof. Hence he' had the right to file an answer and to defend the proceedings. Code Civ. Pro., § 2244; People ex rel. Jacks v. Callahan, 8 Week. Dig. 298. The appellant filed an answer denying the allegations of the petition respecting the hiring of the premises by the tenant, and that the latter’s term therein has expired. Thus there devolved upon the landlord the burden of proving the averments so controverted, which he wholly failed to do. The return fails to disclose any proof whatever in support of such allegations, or of an admission thereof on the part of the appellant during the course of the trial.

There being a total failure of proof with respect to material allegations of the petition, the final order must be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Present: Beekman, P. J., Giegerioh and O’Gorman, JJ.

Order reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 Misc. 749, 64 N.Y.S. 131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/neusberger-v-brodejefsky-nyappterm-1900.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack