Schwartz v. Schultz
This text of 128 Misc. 468 (Schwartz v. Schultz) 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.
Opinions
That the tenants undertook to procure the necessary permit from the fire department does not bar a recovery. It is undisputed that such permit could not be obtained, and the plaintiffs having abandoned possession and terminated the lease have a right, there being no counterclaim presented, to recover the moneys deposited with the landlord to secure performance of their covenants. (Raner v. Goldberg, 215 App. Div. 355.)
Judgment reversed, with thirty dollars costs, and judgment directed for plaintiffs for the relief demanded in the summons, with interest and costs.
Present — Bijur, O’Malley and Levy, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
128 Misc. 468, 219 N.Y.S. 13, 1926 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 800, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schwartz-v-schultz-nyappterm-1926.