Smyth v. Hanig

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Smyth v. Hanig

163 Misc. 59, 296 N.Y.S. 260, 1937 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1273

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 13, 1937

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 163 Misc. 59 (Smyth v. Hanig) 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

Smyth v. Hanig, 163 Misc. 59, 296 N.Y.S. 260, 1937 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1273 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cueiam.

Under the covenants of the lease the landlord was authorized in the event the tenant removed from the premises to re-enter and re-rent as agent of the tenant or otherwise, and [60]*60in case of such re-renting the tenant remained liable for any monthly deficiency. If the landlord had not acted under the covenant he would be entitled to recover the rent from the tenant for every month of the terms after March, 1936. Availing of the covenant and using his best efforts to procure a tenant, a new tenant was procured without obligation on the part of the new tenant to pay the April rent, thus apparently reducing the tenant’s obligation to the payment of one instead of eight months’ rent; and as the arrangement was the best the renting agent could make in the exercise of due diligence plaintiff was entitled to judgment for the April rent.

Judgment reversed, with thirty dollars costs, and judgment directed for plaintiff for eighty-three dollars and thirty-four cents, with costs.

All concur. Present — Levy, Hammer and Callahan, JJ.

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

Pee Cueiam.

Under the covenants of the lease the landlord was authorized in the event the tenant removed from the premises to re-enter and re-rent as agent of the tenant or otherwise, and [60]*60in case of such re-renting the tenant remained liable for any monthly deficiency. If the landlord had not acted under the covenant he would be entitled to recover the rent from the tenant for every month of the terms after March, 1936. Availing of the covenant and using his best efforts to procure a tenant, a new tenant was procured without obligation on the part of the new tenant to pay the April rent, thus apparently reducing the tenant’s obligation to the payment of one instead of eight months’ rent; and as the arrangement was the best the renting agent could make in the exercise of due diligence plaintiff was entitled to judgment for the April rent.

Judgment reversed, with thirty dollars costs, and judgment directed for plaintiff for eighty-three dollars and thirty-four cents, with costs.

All concur. Present — Levy, Hammer and Callahan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

163 Misc. 59, 296 N.Y.S. 260, 1937 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1273, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smyth-v-hanig-nyappterm-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack