Home/Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York/Sancourt Realty Corp. v. Dowling

Sancourt Realty Corp. v. Dowling

220 A.D. 660, 222 N.Y.S. 288, 1927 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9383
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 3, 1927
StatusPublished
Cited by26 cases

This text of 220 A.D. 660 (Sancourt Realty Corp. v. Dowling) 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
Sancourt Realty Corp. v. Dowling, 220 A.D. 660, 222 N.Y.S. 288, 1927 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9383 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1927).

Opinion

Proskauer, J.

In consideration of the execution by plaintiff of a lease to a third party, the defendant covenanted to “ well and truly pay the said rent or any arrears thereof ” in the event of default by the tenant. The defendant pleads the refusal of the landlord to mitigate damages by leasing to a new tenant. This appeal is from the order denying plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the ground of the insufficiency of this defense.

It is settled law that “ the lessor is not required to lease to another if he have an opportunity.” (Becar v. Flues, 64 N. Y. 518.) The usual obligation to reduce damages “ has no application to a contract of leasing, as the latter is governed by peculiar and entirely different rules.” (Gray v. Kaufman Dairy & Ice Cream Co., 9 App. Div. 115, 119.) Rent is.a fixed compensation for a vested interest. The contract, to that extent, is executed by the landlord, and the tenant’s obligation to pay rent' as compensation for the éstate is absolute. The defendant’s absolute covenant to pay any rent which was not paid by the tenant is, therefore, unaffected by the landlord’s refusal to lease to a new tenant. The question of the surety’s right of subrogation is not before us on this appeal.

[661]*661The order appealed from should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion for judgment granted, with ten dollars costs.

Dowling, P. J., Merrell, Martin and O’Malley, JJ., concur.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs.

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

Related

29 Holding Corp. v. Diaz
2004 NY Slip Op 24103 (New York Supreme Court, Bronx County, 2004)
29 Holding Corp. v. Diaz
3 Misc. 3d 808 (New York Supreme Court, 2004)
Holy Properties Ltd. v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc.
661 N.E.2d 694 (New York Court of Appeals, 1995)
Rubin v. Dondysh
146 Misc. 2d 37 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1989)
Syndicate Building Corp. v. Lorber
128 A.D.2d 381 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
Paragon Industries, Inc. v. Williams
122 Misc. 2d 628 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)
Bloor v. State
93 Misc. 2d 899 (New York State Court of Claims, 1978)
Centurian Development Ltd. v. Kenford Co.
60 A.D.2d 96 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)
Lefrak v. Lambert
89 Misc. 2d 197 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1976)
Birchwood Associates v. Stern
88 Misc. 2d 937 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)
Riverview Realty Co. v. Perosio
350 A.2d 517 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1976)
Parkwood Realty Co. v. Marcano
77 Misc. 2d 690 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1974)
Rottkamp v. Eger
74 Misc. 2d 858 (New York Supreme Court, 1973)
Howard Stores Corp. v. Robison Rayon Co.
64 Misc. 2d 913 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1970)
Riggs v. Murdock
458 P.2d 115 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1969)
Fermaglich v. Warshawiak
42 Misc. 2d 1077 (New York County Courts, 1964)
Green v. Beacher
39 Misc. 2d 379 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1963)
Bedford Myrtle Corp. v. Martin
28 Misc. 2d 33 (New York Supreme Court, 1960)
Marshak v. Loewe
20 Misc. 2d 552 (New York Supreme Court, 1959)
Mack Kanner & Sons, Inc. v. Abramowitz
17 Misc. 2d 229 (New York Supreme Court, 1959)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
220 A.D. 660, 222 N.Y.S. 288, 1927 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9383, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sancourt-realty-corp-v-dowling-nyappdiv-1927.