Silverstein v. Empire State Shoe Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Silverstein v. Empire State Shoe Co.

20 A.D.2d 735, 246 N.Y.S.2d 832, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4378

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

DecidedFebruary 20, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 20 A.D.2d 735 (Silverstein v. Empire State Shoe Co.) 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

Silverstein v. Empire State Shoe Co., 20 A.D.2d 735, 246 N.Y.S.2d 832, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4378 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, entered upon a decision, for rent under a lease providing, among other things, that “before this lease commences”, and as “a condition precedent to duties under said lease”, the landlords would make certain installations. None of them were made and this failure is alleged by defendants to be a breach of a condition precedent and to constitute a complete defense to the action. Nevertheless, defendants occupied the premises and paid rent for 26 months before vacating them, at no time objecting to plaintiffs’ failure to make the installations or requesting that they be made. The result was a waiver of the condition or of the landlords’ obligation, however denominated. (Campbell v. Poland Spring Co., 196 App. Div. 331, affd. 233 N. Y. 506; Clements v. Steinhauer, 15 A D 2d 72, 77; Electronic Corp. of America v. Famous Realty, 87 N. Y. S. 2d 169, 172, affd. 275 App. Div. 859.) The conversation between the parties preceding the execution of the contract did not concern a condition as to the delivery or effectiveness of the lease, as in Hubbard v. Tobin (15 Misc 2d 65), relied upon by respondents; but the supposed error in its admission was harmless inasmuch as there was, as we have found, waiver of the landlords’ obligation as a matter of law. Judgment affirmed, with costs to respondents. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Taylor and Aulisi, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, entered upon a decision, for rent under a lease providing, among other things, that “before this lease commences”, and as “a condition precedent to duties under said lease”, the landlords would make certain installations. None of them were made and this failure is alleged by defendants to be a breach of a condition precedent and to constitute a complete defense to the action. Nevertheless, defendants occupied the premises and paid rent for 26 months before vacating them, at no time objecting to plaintiffs’ failure to make the installations or requesting that they be made. The result was a waiver of the condition or of the landlords’ obligation, however denominated. (Campbell v. Poland Spring Co., 196 App. Div. 331, affd. 233 N. Y. 506; Clements v. Steinhauer, 15 A D 2d 72, 77; Electronic Corp. of America v. Famous Realty, 87 N. Y. S. 2d 169, 172, affd. 275 App. Div. 859.) The conversation between the parties preceding the execution of the contract did not concern a condition as to the delivery or effectiveness of the lease, as in Hubbard v. Tobin (15 Misc 2d 65), relied upon by respondents; but the supposed error in its admission was harmless inasmuch as there was, as we have found, waiver of the landlords’ obligation as a matter of law. Judgment affirmed, with costs to respondents. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Taylor and Aulisi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 A.D.2d 735, 246 N.Y.S.2d 832, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4378, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/silverstein-v-empire-state-shoe-co-nyappdiv-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack