St. Vincent Co. v. Frank

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

St. Vincent Co. v. Frank

128 Misc. 464, 219 N.Y.S. 133, 1926 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 817

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedDecember 24, 1926

StatusPublished

This text of 128 Misc. 464 (St. Vincent Co. v. Frank) 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

St. Vincent Co. v. Frank, 128 Misc. 464, 219 N.Y.S. 133, 1926 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 817 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam.

The court’s finding that there was no violation cannot be sustained. The person who, according to the landlord’s evidence, authorized the illegal acts, was concededly a partner in the business of the undertenants. He was not called to deny the testimony of the landlord’s witness and there was no proof to show that he was unavailable. In these circumstances the mere negative testimony of the witness called was insufficient to rebut the landlord’s prima facie case, especially as the manner of conducting the business did not preclude a sale of which he might have no direct knowledge.

Final order reversed, with thirty dollars costs, and final order awarded the landlord for the possession of the premises described in the petition, with costs.

Present — Bijur, O’Malley and Levy, JJ.

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

Per Curiam.

The court’s finding that there was no violation cannot be sustained. The person who, according to the landlord’s evidence, authorized the illegal acts, was concededly a partner in the business of the undertenants. He was not called to deny the testimony of the landlord’s witness and there was no proof to show that he was unavailable. In these circumstances the mere negative testimony of the witness called was insufficient to rebut the landlord’s prima facie case, especially as the manner of conducting the business did not preclude a sale of which he might have no direct knowledge.

Final order reversed, with thirty dollars costs, and final order awarded the landlord for the possession of the premises described in the petition, with costs.

Present — Bijur, O’Malley and Levy, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 Misc. 464, 219 N.Y.S. 133, 1926 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 817, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/st-vincent-co-v-frank-nyappterm-1926.