Princeton Construction Corp. v. Coster

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Princeton Construction Corp. v. Coster

276 A.D.2d 774

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 14, 1949

StatusPublished

This text of 276 A.D.2d 774 (Princeton Construction Corp. v. Coster) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Princeton Construction Corp. v. Coster, 276 A.D.2d 774 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

Nolan, P. J., Carswell and Sneed, JJ., concur; Wenzel, J., dissents and votes to affirm, with the following memorandum, in which Adel, J., concurs: The landlord never received rent from anyone but its tenants, Julius and Elsie Gittes. When these tenants went to Florida, their daughter and son-in-law occupied the apartment. The original tenants still paid the rent. The landlord had a right to assume that the occupants were guests at the apartment during the absence of the tenants. When the landlord found out that the tenants did not intend to return and had given over the apartment to the present occupants, it took the only open course. The duplicity of the original tenants is shown by the admitted fact that they continued to pay the rent. The landlord should not thus have tenants foisted upon it.

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

Nolan, P. J., Carswell and Sneed, JJ., concur; Wenzel, J., dissents and votes to affirm, with the following memorandum, in which Adel, J., concurs: The landlord never received rent from anyone but its tenants, Julius and Elsie Gittes. When these tenants went to Florida, their daughter and son-in-law occupied the apartment. The original tenants still paid the rent. The landlord had a right to assume that the occupants were guests at the apartment during the absence of the tenants. When the landlord found out that the tenants did not intend to return and had given over the apartment to the present occupants, it took the only open course. The duplicity of the original tenants is shown by the admitted fact that they continued to pay the rent. The landlord should not thus have tenants foisted upon it.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 A.D.2d 774, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/princeton-construction-corp-v-coster-nyappdiv-1949.