Paul Laurence Dunbar Apartments, Inc. v. Nelson

136 Misc. 561, 241 N.Y.S. 354, 1930 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1191
CourtCity of New York Municipal Court
DecidedApril 5, 1930
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 136 Misc. 561 (Paul Laurence Dunbar Apartments, Inc. v. Nelson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering City of New York Municipal Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Paul Laurence Dunbar Apartments, Inc. v. Nelson, 136 Misc. 561, 241 N.Y.S. 354, 1930 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1191 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1930).

Opinion

Genung, J.

This is a summary proceeding brought to recover possession of a co-operative apartment and for a judgment for the monthly payments stipulated in a lease and subscription agreement under which the tenant is in possession of such apartment. The tenant has admitted his default with respect to the amount claimed [562]*562by the landlord to be due under the part of the agreement designated as the lease, but disputes the landlord’s right to bring summary proceedings for the monthly installments applicable to the principal and interest due on his subscription for stock in the corporation which owns the apartment house, as called for by the other part of the agreement designated as the subscription agreement.

At the conclusion of the trial both parties moved for the direction of a verdict; the landlord for a final order awarding possession of the apartment, and judgment for the amount demanded in the petition, to wit, $254.20, which included both the monthly payments for “ rent ” as it is called in the agreement, and representing the tenant’s proportionate share of the actual maintenance charges, as well as the monthly payments under the subscription agreement; while the tenant moved for a direction of a verdict in favor of the landlord, but only for the amount of $32.41, representing the “ rent ” as the tenant construes the instrument, for each of the months of January and February, 1930. Both sides having moved for a direction the case was submitted to the court for decision as a question of law.

The agreement between the parties is designated as a “ lease and subscription ” and the tenant is designated as the tenant-subscriber ” on the cover of the agreement. The agreement, while contained within one cover, is divided into two distinct parts, each of them separately executed and acknowledged by the parties.

At the very outset of the indenture it is provided that the lessee is to occupy apartment 1-A in the building known as No. 2816 Eighth avenue, for the term of two years, at the annual rental of $389 payable in equal monthly installments of $32.41, subject, however, to the terms, covenants and conditions hereinafter set forth in this lease, and those contained in said subscription agreement.” The subscription agreement calls for the payment of a total sum of $6,680 over a period of years in monthly installments, which installments at the time of the institution of this proceeding amounted to $49.01 per month. The landlord claims that the total of these two monthly payments of $32.41 and $49.01, respectively, aggregating $81.42, constitutes the true rental under this agreement between the parties, and that for the non-payment of any part of such aggregate amount, summary proceedings can be prosecuted. This construction of the agreement is based upon a reading of the entire agreement, and the implications of a number of provisions in the agreement, there being no express language designating the monthly payments under the subscription agreement part of the rent for the occupancy of the premises.

The covenant of quiet enjoyment, which is paragraph (3) of [563]*563article II, is conditioned upon the lessee “ paying the rent and performing all the covenants and conditions to be performed by the lessee, as herein, and in said subscription agreement, set forth.”

The covenant of payment by the lessee for his subscription, which is paragraph (1), article III, reads as follows: “That the Lessee will pay to the Lessor or its agents at its or their office in the City of New York, the rent hereinabove reserved in lawful money of the United States at the times hereinabove specified and will pay to the Lessor or its agents, at its or their office in the City of New York, in lawful money of the United States, all sums payable under the terms of said subscription agreement at the times provided in said subscription agreement, and will promptly comply with all of the other provisions of said subscription agreement.”

In that part of the agreement which is denominated the subscription agreement it is provided that the times of payments on account of the subscription to stock are of the essence of the agreement, and that after the certificates of stock subscribed for are paid for and issued to the subscriber, they shall not be delivered to the subscriber “ but shall be deposited with and retained by the owner as security for the performance by the subscriber of the provisions of the lease herein mentioned or of any renewal thereof, or of any new lease covering the apartment hereinafter referred to, and of this subscription agreement.” The subscription agreement "also provides as follows: “ The rights and duties of the subscriber hereto, either as such subscriber or as a stockholder, shall at all times be subject to all the terms and conditions of the aforesaid lease and of this subscription agreement.

“ If the Subscriber ceases to be a tenant in the said apartment building he must also cease to be the holder of or the subscriber to said shares of stock herein subscribed for.”

Provision is made in the event of the failure by the tenant to renew his existing lease in accordance with the terms thereof, or in the event of such existing lease being made to expire by reason of any default of the subscriber as lessee under such lease, that such events shall “ constitute an election by the subscriber to withdraw from the enterprise for which the owner was organized and thereupon the subscriber loses all rights in the stock subscribed for whether or not the same have been fully paid for, except to receive payments from the sale of the said shares of stock of an aggregate amount equal to the amount theretofore paid to the owner by the subscriber on account of the principal of the subscription price under the agreement.”

There are a number of other provisions of the agreement between the parties, contained in both parts thereof, which together with [564]*564those already referred to indicate quite clearly the integration of the two classes of obligation of the lessee and subscriber, one for the payment of a specified amount monthly representing a proportionate share of the maintenance expenses, and another representing an installment of the purchase price of the apartment, to such an extent as to constitute the aggregate of such payments a condition precedent to the lessee’s continued possession of the apartment. The language of the agreement in its several provisions indicates throughout that it was the intention of the parties that the tenancy could not survive the termination of the subscriber’s beneficial ownership of his stock and that conversely his right to the beneficial ownership of such stock would terminate with the expiration of his tenancy of the apartment. The two parts of the instrument must be read together as one agreement, since their respective provisions are tied together by numerous clauses which render the obligations under each of them a condition to the enjoyment of rights under the other. While the payments required to be made under the subscription agreement are not expressly denominated as rent ” the implication of the various provisions is unmistakable that such payments were regarded by the parties as rent in the sense that without such payments possession of the leased premises could not be retained.

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

Related

Southridge Cooperative Section No. 3, Inc. v. Menendez
141 Misc. 2d 823 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1988)
Hauptman v. 222 East 80th Street Corp.
100 Misc. 2d 153 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1979)
North Shore Mart v. Grand Union Co.
58 Misc. 2d 640 (Nassau County District Court, 1968)
In re the Accounting of Chase National Bank
205 Misc. 770 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1954)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
136 Misc. 561, 241 N.Y.S. 354, 1930 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1191, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paul-laurence-dunbar-apartments-inc-v-nelson-nynyccityct-1930.