Rosenblum v. Riley

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Rosenblum v. Riley

84 N.Y.S. 884, 1903 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 512

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 18, 1903

StatusPublished

This text of 84 N.Y.S. 884 (Rosenblum v. Riley) 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

Rosenblum v. Riley, 84 N.Y.S. 884, 1903 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 512 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

BISCHOFF, J.

The measure of the plaintiff’s general damage was the difference between the rent reserved and the rental value of the premises which were the subject of the lease. Dodds v. Hakes, 114 N. Y. 265, 21 N. E. 398.

The only indication of an excess of rental value over the agreed rent is sought to be afforded by proof of the rent paid by the lessee for other premises claimed to be of a similar character, and that the justice deemed this evidence to afford a basis of damages is apparent from the judgment rendered. It is the established rule in this state that damages founded upon real estate values cannot be proven by comparison between the premises in question and other premises, the policy of the rule being to avoid collateral issues, such as every such comparison would involve. Matter of Thompson, 127 N. Y. 463, 28 N. E. 389, 14 L. R. A. 52; Huntington v. Attrill, 118 N. Y. 378, 23 N. E. 544; Jamieson v. Ry. Co., 147 N. Y. 322, 41 N. E. 693. The reception of this evidence was continuously resisted by the defendant, and the judgment founded upon it is well assailed.

Final order reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

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

BISCHOFF, J.

The measure of the plaintiff’s general damage was the difference between the rent reserved and the rental value of the premises which were the subject of the lease. Dodds v. Hakes, 114 N. Y. 265, 21 N. E. 398.

The only indication of an excess of rental value over the agreed rent is sought to be afforded by proof of the rent paid by the lessee for other premises claimed to be of a similar character, and that the justice deemed this evidence to afford a basis of damages is apparent from the judgment rendered. It is the established rule in this state that damages founded upon real estate values cannot be proven by comparison between the premises in question and other premises, the policy of the rule being to avoid collateral issues, such as every such comparison would involve. Matter of Thompson, 127 N. Y. 463, 28 N. E. 389, 14 L. R. A. 52; Huntington v. Attrill, 118 N. Y. 378, 23 N. E. 544; Jamieson v. Ry. Co., 147 N. Y. 322, 41 N. E. 693. The reception of this evidence was continuously resisted by the defendant, and the judgment founded upon it is well assailed.

Final order reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 N.Y.S. 884, 1903 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 512, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosenblum-v-riley-nyappterm-1903.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack