Smith v. Frank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Smith v. Frank

252 A.D. 834, 299 N.Y.S. 125, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6396

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

DecidedOctober 6, 1937

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 252 A.D. 834 (Smith v. Frank) 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

Smith v. Frank, 252 A.D. 834, 299 N.Y.S. 125, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6396 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Order denying defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted. Appeal from order denying plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment dismissed as academic. Memorandum: The lease was terminated, and the relation of landlord and tenant ceased when defendant was ejected from the premises by summary proceedings. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1434.) The lessee defendant still remained liable to the lessor plaintiff, but the liability was for damages, not for rent (Hermitage Co. v. Lavine, 248 N. Y. 333), and the action was prematurely brought. (Lenco, Inc., v. Hirschfeld, 247 N. Y. 44.) The case of Kottler v. N. Y. Bargain House, Inc. (242 N. Y. 29) is not in point, because in that case there was no eviction. The case of McCready v. Lindenborn (172 N. Y. 400) is not in point because, though there the action was for damages and not for rent, the lease clearly provided that damages should be ascertained and collected from month to month. Plaintiff in this case must wait until the end of the leasing period before suing for damages. All concur. (One order denies plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment; the other order denies defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, in an action to recover rentals due.) Present — Sears, P. J., Edgcomb, Crosby, Lewis and Cunningham, JJ.

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

Order denying defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted. Appeal from order denying plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment dismissed as academic. Memorandum: The lease was terminated, and the relation of landlord and tenant ceased when defendant was ejected from the premises by summary proceedings. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1434.) The lessee defendant still remained liable to the lessor plaintiff, but the liability was for damages, not for rent (Hermitage Co. v. Lavine, 248 N. Y. 333), and the action was prematurely brought. (Lenco, Inc., v. Hirschfeld, 247 N. Y. 44.) The case of Kottler v. N. Y. Bargain House, Inc. (242 N. Y. 29) is not in point, because in that case there was no eviction. The case of McCready v. Lindenborn (172 N. Y. 400) is not in point because, though there the action was for damages and not for rent, the lease clearly provided that damages should be ascertained and collected from month to month. Plaintiff in this case must wait until the end of the leasing period before suing for damages. All concur. (One order denies plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment; the other order denies defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, in an action to recover rentals due.) Present — Sears, P. J., Edgcomb, Crosby, Lewis and Cunningham, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

252 A.D. 834, 299 N.Y.S. 125, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6396, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-frank-nyappdiv-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack