Goldfein v. Crown Infants Wear Co.

CourtNew York City Municipal Court
Writing for the CourtARTHUR A. KLOTZ
Citation221 N.Y.S.2d 205
PartiesPauline R. GOLDFEIN, Edna Goldfein Rosenberg and Stanley Goldfein, Landlords v. CROWN INFANTS WEAR CO., Inc., Tenant.
Decision Date17 November 1961

Page 205

221 N.Y.S.2d 205
Pauline R. GOLDFEIN, Edna Goldfein Rosenberg and Stanley
Goldfein, Landlords
v.
CROWN INFANTS WEAR CO., Inc., Tenant.
Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of
Manhattan, Ninth District.
Nov. 17, 1961.

Page 206

Paul R. Shaw, New York City, for landlords.

Harold S. Kohn, New York City, for tenant.

ARTHUR A. KLOTZ, Justice.

This is a non-payment proceeding for rent in the sum of $377 for the month of October, 1961.

The tenant has been in possession of the demised premises for many years. The last lease between the parties was made on March 16, 1953, and expired on January 31, 1956. It provided for an annual rental of $4,000 fixed as the emergency rent by a separate statutory agreement. Since the expiration of the lease the tenant has remained in possession as a statutory tenant.

On June 1, 1960, the landlords made a tender of a lease pursuant to section 8(gg)(2) of the Emergency Commercial Rent Control Law, McK.Unconsol.Laws, § 8528(gg)(2). The tenant refused the proffered lease claiming it was not on substantially the same terms and conditions as its statutory tenancy. This is based upon the assertion that the lease offered contained no provision for painting the demised premises, whereas the last lease between the parties did so provide and hence, the obligation to paint was projected into the statutory tenancy.

The pertinent provision of the 1953 lease between the parties reads: '39. It is expressly understood and agreed that the Landlord agrees to paint the premises in the standard customary manner on or before the expiration of ten (10) days from the execution of this agreement, that the Landlord is unwilling to do so in the event that the tenant shall elect to cancel the Fair Rent agreement simultaneously made herewith, and that if the tenant does so cancel the said agreement, the tenant agrees to reimburse the Landlord for the entire cost of such painting in an amount

Page 207

not to exceed $400, the paid bill by the landlord therefor to be the conclusive determination of the cost thereof, the amount herein provided for to be payable upon presentation of a bill by the Landlord, and if not paid shall be added to the rent to become due on the 1st day of the next succeeding month as additional rent with all of the limitations herein granted to the Landlord for the collection of rent and additional rent.'

Quite obviously, the landlords' offer to paint was a consideration for the tenant entering...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 practice notes
  • Joffe v. Drake Business School, Inc.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Term
    • June 18, 1962
    ...served upon it (cf. South Carolina Leasing Co. v. Allen, 32 Misc.2d 659, 211 N.Y.S.2d 923; Goldfein v. Crown Infants Wear Co., Mun.Ct., 221 N .Y.S.2d 205). ...
1 cases
  • Joffe v. Drake Business School, Inc.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Term
    • June 18, 1962
    ...served upon it (cf. South Carolina Leasing Co. v. Allen, 32 Misc.2d 659, 211 N.Y.S.2d 923; Goldfein v. Crown Infants Wear Co., Mun.Ct., 221 N .Y.S.2d 205). ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT