Pure Oil Co. v. Rosengarten

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pure Oil Co. v. Rosengarten

234 A.D. 508, 255 N.Y.S. 598, 1932 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10473

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

DecidedFebruary 29, 1932

StatusPublished

This text of 234 A.D. 508 (Pure Oil Co. v. Rosengarten) 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

Pure Oil Co. v. Rosengarten, 234 A.D. 508, 255 N.Y.S. 598, 1932 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10473 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam.

The court erred in excluding evidence as to preliminary conversation between the parties as to the terms to be incorporated in the lease. We think the clause of the lease, viz., “ The said renewal of five years shall, however, be subject to the right of the lessor, if he should sell the said piece of land, to terminate the same at any time upon ninety days’ written notice to the lessee,” is ambiguous, and the evidence excluded should have been received to show the true intention.

[509]*509The judgment should be reversed on the law and a new trial granted, costs to appellant to abide the event.

Young, Kapper and Hagarty, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., dissents, with opinion, in which Carswell, J., concurs.

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

Per Curiam.

The court erred in excluding evidence as to preliminary conversation between the parties as to the terms to be incorporated in the lease. We think the clause of the lease, viz., “ The said renewal of five years shall, however, be subject to the right of the lessor, if he should sell the said piece of land, to terminate the same at any time upon ninety days’ written notice to the lessee,” is ambiguous, and the evidence excluded should have been received to show the true intention.

[509]*509The judgment should be reversed on the law and a new trial granted, costs to appellant to abide the event.

Young, Kapper and Hagarty, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., dissents, with opinion, in which Carswell, J., concurs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

234 A.D. 508, 255 N.Y.S. 598, 1932 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10473, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pure-oil-co-v-rosengarten-nyappdiv-1932.