R. N. H. Management Co. v. David Silver, Inc.

24 A.D.2d 869, 264 N.Y.S.2d 324, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3101
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 1, 1965
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 24 A.D.2d 869 (R. N. H. Management Co. v. David Silver, Inc.) 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
R. N. H. Management Co. v. David Silver, Inc., 24 A.D.2d 869, 264 N.Y.S.2d 324, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3101 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Opinion

In a dispossess proceeding, the tenant appeals, by permission of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, from an order of said court, dated March 24, 1965, which unanimously affirmed a final order or judgment of the Civil Court, Queens County, entered October 13, 1964 upon the court’s direction of a verdict for $850 in the landlord’s favor. Order of the Appellate Term and final order or judgment of the Civil Court reversed on the law and the facts, and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. In our opinion, the tenant made out a prima facie case of economic duress in the making and delivery of the agreement modifying the terms of the lease between the parties. Accordingly, the court was in error in dismissing the defense for lack of proof and not submitting the issue to the jury for determination (Oleet v. Pennsylvania Exch. Bank, 285 App. Div. 411, 414-415; Kilpatrick v. Germania Life Ins. Co., 183 N. Y. 163; Elman v. Brown, Harris, Stevens, 286 App. Div. 247; 5 Williston, Contracts [rev. ed.], § 1603, p. 4495; § 1606, pp. 4501-4502; § 1618, p. 4523; § 1620, pp. 4530, 4531, note 7). Questions of fact exist as to the landlord’s good faith in making demands for increased rent in the light of the terms of the existing lease and the adequacy of any legal remedy on the part of the tenant to resist the claimed threats of eviction and criminal prosecution. At the trial the facts and circumstances leading to and concerning the making and delivery of the modification agreement should be properly subjects of proof by both parties. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Herrnson v. Hoffman
S.D. New York, 2021

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
24 A.D.2d 869, 264 N.Y.S.2d 324, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3101, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/r-n-h-management-co-v-david-silver-inc-nyappdiv-1965.