Ridder v. Mutual Paper Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Ridder v. Mutual Paper Co.

126 Misc. 108, 212 N.Y.S. 576, 1925 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1138

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedDecember 3, 1925

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 126 Misc. 108 (Ridder v. Mutual Paper Co.) 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

Ridder v. Mutual Paper Co., 126 Misc. 108, 212 N.Y.S. 576, 1925 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1138 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiffs sued for breach of covenants in a lease to put and keep the premises in good order and repair. The defendant argues that even in such a contract the obligation of the lessee depends upon the age and character of the building and that since there was no testimony in that regard the verdict directed for the defendant was correct. It seems to us, however, that the obligation was not limited by the original condition of the premises nor by their age but was a direct and absolute obligation to put the premises in good repair. (City of New York v. McCarthy, 171 App. Div. [109]*109561.) The necessity for the expenditures is demonstrated by photographic evidence of great dilapidation and damage, and the amount of damage was proved prima facie by testimony of a contractor who repaired it.

Both sides moved for a directed verdict.

The judgment is, therefore, reversed, with $30 costs, and a verdict directed in favor of plaintiffs in the sum of $1,000, with costs.

All concur; present, Guy, Bijur and Mullan, JJ.

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

Per Curiam.

Plaintiffs sued for breach of covenants in a lease to put and keep the premises in good order and repair. The defendant argues that even in such a contract the obligation of the lessee depends upon the age and character of the building and that since there was no testimony in that regard the verdict directed for the defendant was correct. It seems to us, however, that the obligation was not limited by the original condition of the premises nor by their age but was a direct and absolute obligation to put the premises in good repair. (City of New York v. McCarthy, 171 App. Div. [109]*109561.) The necessity for the expenditures is demonstrated by photographic evidence of great dilapidation and damage, and the amount of damage was proved prima facie by testimony of a contractor who repaired it.

Both sides moved for a directed verdict.

The judgment is, therefore, reversed, with $30 costs, and a verdict directed in favor of plaintiffs in the sum of $1,000, with costs.

All concur; present, Guy, Bijur and Mullan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 Misc. 108, 212 N.Y.S. 576, 1925 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1138, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ridder-v-mutual-paper-co-nyappterm-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack