Pine Hill Associates v. Malveaux

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Pine Hill Associates v. Malveaux

93 Misc. 2d 63, 403 N.Y.S.2d 398, 1978 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2013

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJanuary 17, 1978

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 93 Misc. 2d 63 (Pine Hill Associates v. Malveaux) 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

Pine Hill Associates v. Malveaux, 93 Misc. 2d 63, 403 N.Y.S.2d 398, 1978 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2013 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Judgment and order of the court below (see 89 Misc 2d 234) [64]*64unanimously reversed, without costs, and matter remanded to the court below for a trial in accordance with the opinion herein.

Where provided for in the lease, peaceable re-entry by landlord is permissible where the tenant has failed to pay the rent when due (see Fults v Munro, 202 NY 34; Michaels v Fishel, 169 NY 381; Cohen v Carpenter, 128 App Div 862; Ajax Wrecking & Lbr. Co. v Baker, NYLJ, April 21, 1977, p 12, col 4; 2 Rasch, NY Landlord and Tenant 2d ed, § 734.) However, this being a common-law right, the landlord must first make a demand for the rent. (See Earl v Nalley, 273 App Div 451, 454-455.) In the instant matter, the record is unclear as to whether or not a demand for rent was made before landlord exercised its right of re-entry and whether or not landlord, by its actions, willfully deprived tenant of his personal effects entitling tenant to the damages incurred thereby (10 NY Jur, Conversion, § 35; cf. Price v Hoyle, 82 Misc 2d 174). A new trial is necessary for further development of the facts.

Concur: Farley, P. J., Glickman and Gagliardi, JJ.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Judgment and order of the court below (see 89 Misc 2d 234) [64]*64unanimously reversed, without costs, and matter remanded to the court below for a trial in accordance with the opinion herein.

Where provided for in the lease, peaceable re-entry by landlord is permissible where the tenant has failed to pay the rent when due (see Fults v Munro, 202 NY 34; Michaels v Fishel, 169 NY 381; Cohen v Carpenter, 128 App Div 862; Ajax Wrecking & Lbr. Co. v Baker, NYLJ, April 21, 1977, p 12, col 4; 2 Rasch, NY Landlord and Tenant 2d ed, § 734.) However, this being a common-law right, the landlord must first make a demand for the rent. (See Earl v Nalley, 273 App Div 451, 454-455.) In the instant matter, the record is unclear as to whether or not a demand for rent was made before landlord exercised its right of re-entry and whether or not landlord, by its actions, willfully deprived tenant of his personal effects entitling tenant to the damages incurred thereby (10 NY Jur, Conversion, § 35; cf. Price v Hoyle, 82 Misc 2d 174). A new trial is necessary for further development of the facts.

Concur: Farley, P. J., Glickman and Gagliardi, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 Misc. 2d 63, 403 N.Y.S.2d 398, 1978 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2013, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pine-hill-associates-v-malveaux-nyappterm-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack