Weinberg v. Ely

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Weinberg v. Ely

114 A.D. 857, 100 N.Y.S. 283, 1906 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2211

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

DecidedJuly 24, 1906

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 114 A.D. 857 (Weinberg v. Ely) 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

Weinberg v. Ely, 114 A.D. 857, 100 N.Y.S. 283, 1906 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2211 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

Gaynor, J.:

Counsel for the appellant persisted on the argument in criticising the summary disposition of the case by the learned trial judge as arbitrary, and the like. Such criticism was unfounded and out of place. It was for the tenant to protect his goods after the fire by covering them, moving them out, or by making the repairs himself at the landlord’s expense. The law did not tie his hands. The law. is not that he could neglect his goods, and recover of the landlord [859]*859for damage done to them by the landlord’s neglect to repair (Cook v. Soule, 56 N. Y. 420). Nor did the lease bind the landlord to repair; it only provided that the repairs should be done at his expense.

The j udgment and order should be affirmed.

IIirschberg, P. J., Woodward and Hooker, JJ., concurred.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. ‘

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

Gaynor, J.:

Counsel for the appellant persisted on the argument in criticising the summary disposition of the case by the learned trial judge as arbitrary, and the like. Such criticism was unfounded and out of place. It was for the tenant to protect his goods after the fire by covering them, moving them out, or by making the repairs himself at the landlord’s expense. The law did not tie his hands. The law. is not that he could neglect his goods, and recover of the landlord [859]*859for damage done to them by the landlord’s neglect to repair (Cook v. Soule, 56 N. Y. 420). Nor did the lease bind the landlord to repair; it only provided that the repairs should be done at his expense.

The j udgment and order should be affirmed.

IIirschberg, P. J., Woodward and Hooker, JJ., concurred.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. ‘

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 A.D. 857, 100 N.Y.S. 283, 1906 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2211, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weinberg-v-ely-nyappdiv-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack