Sixth Avenue Twenty-third Street Corp. v. Dane

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Sixth Avenue Twenty-third Street Corp. v. Dane

92 Misc. 398, 156 N.Y.S. 89

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 15, 1915

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 92 Misc. 398 (Sixth Avenue Twenty-third Street Corp. v. Dane) 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

Sixth Avenue Twenty-third Street Corp. v. Dane, 92 Misc. 398, 156 N.Y.S. 89 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Page, J.

The trial judge erred in holding that the service of the precept was a sufficient demand for the rent. This error, however, was not prejudicial as a suf[399]*399ficient personal demand was proved. The exclusion of the evidence, of the alleged false and fraudulent representation in reliance upon which the tenant claimed to have entered into the lease, requires a reversal of the order. While the allegations of the answer are •somewhat inartificial, the facts being alleged as a defense and by way of counterclaim, and it not clearly appearing whether the statements alleged to have been made related to existing facts and hence a representation, or to future conditions and therefore a warranty, the evidence should have been admitted. If the evidence disclosed a false representation, the tenant could counterclaim his damages, although he could not set the matter up as a defense. Pryor v. Foster, 130 N. Y. 171; Driggs v. Hendrickson, 151 N. Y. Supp. 858. The cases cited were actions for rent, hut section 2244 of the Code of Civil Procedure makes such a counterclaim available in a summary proceeding.

Bijur and Shearn, JJ., concur.

Pinal order reversed and a new trial ordered, with thirty dollars costs to the appellant to abide the event.

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

Page, J.

The trial judge erred in holding that the service of the precept was a sufficient demand for the rent. This error, however, was not prejudicial as a suf[399]*399ficient personal demand was proved. The exclusion of the evidence, of the alleged false and fraudulent representation in reliance upon which the tenant claimed to have entered into the lease, requires a reversal of the order. While the allegations of the answer are •somewhat inartificial, the facts being alleged as a defense and by way of counterclaim, and it not clearly appearing whether the statements alleged to have been made related to existing facts and hence a representation, or to future conditions and therefore a warranty, the evidence should have been admitted. If the evidence disclosed a false representation, the tenant could counterclaim his damages, although he could not set the matter up as a defense. Pryor v. Foster, 130 N. Y. 171; Driggs v. Hendrickson, 151 N. Y. Supp. 858. The cases cited were actions for rent, hut section 2244 of the Code of Civil Procedure makes such a counterclaim available in a summary proceeding.

Bijur and Shearn, JJ., concur.

Pinal order reversed and a new trial ordered, with thirty dollars costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 Misc. 398, 156 N.Y.S. 89, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sixth-avenue-twenty-third-street-corp-v-dane-nyappterm-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack