Schulz & Setleis, Inc. v. Downey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schulz & Setleis, Inc. v. Downey

238 A.D. 866

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

DecidedMarch 15, 1933

StatusPublished

This text of 238 A.D. 866 (Schulz & Setleis, Inc. v. Downey) 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

Schulz & Setleis, Inc. v. Downey, 238 A.D. 866 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of Appellate Term affirming judgment of the Municipal Court reversed on the law and the facts, judgment of the Municipal Court reversed and complaint dismissed, with costs in ah courts. We are of opinion that the taking of the leased property by the city of New York in condemnation proceedings was not a sale within the meaning of the lease made by the defendants to W. R. Schulz, the lessee named in the lease. Even if it were such a sale, there was no assignment to the plaintiff of the rights of Schulz under the lease justifying this action. Since there was no assignment, the security deposited may not be recovered by this plaintiff. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Hagarty, Tompkins and Davis, JJ., concur.

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

Order of Appellate Term affirming judgment of the Municipal Court reversed on the law and the facts, judgment of the Municipal Court reversed and complaint dismissed, with costs in ah courts. We are of opinion that the taking of the leased property by the city of New York in condemnation proceedings was not a sale within the meaning of the lease made by the defendants to W. R. Schulz, the lessee named in the lease. Even if it were such a sale, there was no assignment to the plaintiff of the rights of Schulz under the lease justifying this action. Since there was no assignment, the security deposited may not be recovered by this plaintiff. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Hagarty, Tompkins and Davis, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 A.D. 866, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schulz-setleis-inc-v-downey-nyappdiv-1933.