Towle v. Kaplan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Towle v. Kaplan

278 A.D. 1001, 105 N.Y.S.2d 834, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5479

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

DecidedJune 29, 1951

StatusPublished

This text of 278 A.D. 1001 (Towle v. Kaplan) 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

Towle v. Kaplan, 278 A.D. 1001, 105 N.Y.S.2d 834, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5479 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, made at a Trial and Special Term for St. Lawrence County, which dismissed the amended complaint herein- as to eacli defendant. Plaintiff leased a one-family residential house from the individual defendant, who later conveyed the premises to the corporate defendant. As lessee plaintiff agreed to make any necessary repairs. He was injured by reason of an alleged defective condition of a sunken pit in the cellar. The complaint was dismissed on the theory that plaintiff was in full control and possession of the premises. Plaintiff urges that under the Federal Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 (U. S. Code, tit. 50, Appendix, § 901 et seq.) a duty was cast upon the landlord to make repairs. Assuming this to be a fact it does not supersede the common-law rule of nonliability in this State where tenant has full control otherwise (Gullings v. Goetz, 256 N. Y. 287). The control con[1002]*1002templated by the rule is beyond a mere duty to repair. Nor did any violation of the Price Control Act, under the circumstances alleged, give rise to an action for negligence or nuisance. Order unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs. Present — Poster, P. J., Heffernan, Deyo, Bergan and Coon, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, made at a Trial and Special Term for St. Lawrence County, which dismissed the amended complaint herein- as to eacli defendant. Plaintiff leased a one-family residential house from the individual defendant, who later conveyed the premises to the corporate defendant. As lessee plaintiff agreed to make any necessary repairs. He was injured by reason of an alleged defective condition of a sunken pit in the cellar. The complaint was dismissed on the theory that plaintiff was in full control and possession of the premises. Plaintiff urges that under the Federal Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 (U. S. Code, tit. 50, Appendix, § 901 et seq.) a duty was cast upon the landlord to make repairs. Assuming this to be a fact it does not supersede the common-law rule of nonliability in this State where tenant has full control otherwise (Gullings v. Goetz, 256 N. Y. 287). The control con[1002]*1002templated by the rule is beyond a mere duty to repair. Nor did any violation of the Price Control Act, under the circumstances alleged, give rise to an action for negligence or nuisance. Order unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs. Present — Poster, P. J., Heffernan, Deyo, Bergan and Coon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D. 1001, 105 N.Y.S.2d 834, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5479, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/towle-v-kaplan-nyappdiv-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack