Heyman v. Linwood Park, Inc., Section Four, A--510

CourtNew Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
Writing for the CourtFREUND
Citation125 A.2d 345,41 N.J.Super. 437
PartiesLloyd HEYMAN, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. LINWOOD PARK, INC., SECTION FOUR, a New Jersey corporation, Defendant-Appellant. No . Appellate Division
Decision Date14 September 1956
Docket NumberA--510

Page 437

41 N.J.Super. 437
125 A.2d 345
Lloyd HEYMAN, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
LINWOOD PARK, INC., SECTION FOUR, a New Jersey corporation,
Defendant-Appellant.
No A--510.
Superior Court of New Jersey.
Appellate Division.
Argued Sept. 5, 1956.
Decided Sept. 14, 1956.

Page 439

[125 A.2d 346] Charles E. Villanueva, Newark, for defendant-appellant (Van Riper & Belmont, Newark, attorneys; Walter D. Van Riper and Eugene Tighe, Newark, of counsel).

No appearance for, nor brief filed by, the plaintiff-respondent.

Before Judges GOLDMANN, FREUND and CONFORD.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

FREUND, J.A.D.

The defendant landlord, Linwood Park, Inc., appeals from a judgment for $103.50 and interest in favor of the plaintiff tenant, Lloyd Heyman, entered in the Bergen County District Court after trial without a jury. The plaintiff filed no brief on this appeal; nor did he appear on oral argument.

Page 440

The plaintiff and the defendant entered into a written lease for an apartment for a term beginning December 1, 1953 and ending November 30, 1955 at a monthly rental of $69, paryable in advance on the first day of each month. In accordance with the terms of the lease, the tenant deposited with the landlord the sum of $69 as security for his full and faithful performance of the lease provisions. The deposit was to be returned to the tenant at the expiration of the term, provided the tenant had carried out all the provisions of the lease, one of which was to surrender the demised premises 'in as good order and condition as they were at the beginning of the term, reasonable wear and damage by the elements excepted.' The lease further provided that in the event of a default or should be premises be vacated, the landlord had the right to reenter and at its option to relet as agent of the tenant.

The tenant entered into possession and paid the stipulated rent each month including that due for October 1955.

On October 7 or 8, 1955 the plaintiff vacated the premises, moving all his effects but retaining the key to the apartment. When questioned by Mr. Cittadino, the rental agent of the defendant, as to what he was doing, he said that he was moving. Mr. Cittadino testified that on October 8 he inspected the apartment and noticed three different colors of paint on the walls, a two-by-four board across the ceiling, that the wall plaster was broken and there were holes in the floor. The plaintiff admitted that he had had a room separator in the apartment, which was fastened to the wall and to the floor, and that when he removed it there were three or four screw holes in the wall and two in the floor, and that the wall plaster was damaged.

[125 A.2d 347] Mr. Sarner, the defendant's maintenance manager, testified that the apartment was painted on October 12 and 13, and was rerented on October 15, 1955 at the same monthly rental of $69. Subsequently, the plaintiff demanded refund to him of the half-month's rent from October 15 to 31, 1955, and the return of the security deposit of $69. The landlord

Page 441

refused the plaintiff's demand, and the present proceeding was instituted.

The trial court found that the landlord's act of reletting the premises was performed as agent of the tenant; that the landlord proved no expenses incurred in reletting; that the rent collected from the new tenant was for the benefit of the plaintiff and to be applied to rent due; and that, since the rent for October had already been paid, the half-month's rent should be returned to him. Further, that the premises 'as the time plaintiff removed his furniture and the defendant took possession were in as good condition as they were when originally...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • Sommer v. Kridel
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • June 29, 1977
    ...tenant. See Joyce v. Bauman, supra; Weiss v. I. Zapinski, Inc., 65 N.J.Super. 351, 167 A.2d 802 (App.Div.1961); Heyman v. Linwood Park, 41 N.J.Super. 437, 125 A.2d 345 (App.Div.1956); Zucker v. Dehm, 128 N.J.L. 435, 26 A.2d 564 (Sup.Ct.1942); Heckel v. Griese, 12 N.J.Misc. 211, 171 A. 148 (......
  • In re Plywood Company of Pennsylvania, No. 18155.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • April 24, 1970
    ...132 N.J.L. 461, 40 A.2d 794 (1945) cert. denied, 325 U.S. 876, 65 S.Ct. 1556, 89 L.Ed. 1994; Heyman v. Linwood Park Inc., Section Four, 41 N.J. Super. 437, 125 A.2d 345 (1956); Burnstine v. Margulies, 18 N.J.Super. 259, 87 A.2d 37 (1952). Pable v. Zebrowski, 15 N.J.Super. 261, 83 A.2d 352 (......
  • McSorley v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • June 28, 1957
    ...--------------- 1 Act of May 21, 1937, P.L. 774, No. 211, § 4, 36 P.S. § 652d. 2 Watson v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, 386 Pa. 117, 125 A.2d 345, infra; Marshall Impeachment Case, 360 Pa. 304, 62 A.2d 30, infra; Milford Township Supervisors' Removal Case, 291 Pa. 46, 139 A. 623, infra......
  • Westmount Country Club v. Kameny, No. A--865
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
    • February 6, 1964
    ...against the amount due under the lease to the extent of payment received by the landlord from the new tenant. Henman v. Linwood Park, 41 N.J.Super. 437, 441--442, 125 A.2d 345 It is to be recalled that the agreement further provided that plaintiff, upon defendant's default, while not obliga......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • Sommer v. Kridel
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • June 29, 1977
    ...tenant. See Joyce v. Bauman, supra; Weiss v. I. Zapinski, Inc., 65 N.J.Super. 351, 167 A.2d 802 (App.Div.1961); Heyman v. Linwood Park, 41 N.J.Super. 437, 125 A.2d 345 (App.Div.1956); Zucker v. Dehm, 128 N.J.L. 435, 26 A.2d 564 (Sup.Ct.1942); Heckel v. Griese, 12 N.J.Misc. 211, 171 A. 148 (......
  • In re Plywood Company of Pennsylvania, No. 18155.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • April 24, 1970
    ...132 N.J.L. 461, 40 A.2d 794 (1945) cert. denied, 325 U.S. 876, 65 S.Ct. 1556, 89 L.Ed. 1994; Heyman v. Linwood Park Inc., Section Four, 41 N.J. Super. 437, 125 A.2d 345 (1956); Burnstine v. Margulies, 18 N.J.Super. 259, 87 A.2d 37 (1952). Pable v. Zebrowski, 15 N.J.Super. 261, 83 A.2d 352 (......
  • McSorley v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • June 28, 1957
    ...--------------- 1 Act of May 21, 1937, P.L. 774, No. 211, § 4, 36 P.S. § 652d. 2 Watson v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, 386 Pa. 117, 125 A.2d 345, infra; Marshall Impeachment Case, 360 Pa. 304, 62 A.2d 30, infra; Milford Township Supervisors' Removal Case, 291 Pa. 46, 139 A. 623, infra......
  • Westmount Country Club v. Kameny, No. A--865
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
    • February 6, 1964
    ...against the amount due under the lease to the extent of payment received by the landlord from the new tenant. Henman v. Linwood Park, 41 N.J.Super. 437, 441--442, 125 A.2d 345 It is to be recalled that the agreement further provided that plaintiff, upon defendant's default, while not obliga......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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