Janos v. Peck
| Decision Date | 15 October 1964 |
| Citation | 15 N.Y.2d 509,254 N.Y.S.2d 115 |
| Parties | , 202 N.E.2d 560 Emanuel JANOS et al., Appellants, v. Hildreth G. PECK, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, 21 A.D.2d 529, 251 N.Y.S.2d 254.
The parties were co-tenants, each owning a one-fifth undivided interest in a commercial building. After defendant procured a judgment establishing her ownership of an undivided one-fifth interest in the building, all of the co-tenants entered into a contract on April 27, 1954 settling the claim for services and accounts of two of the plaintiffs, who were co-tenants, in the management of the building for a period from December 1, 1949 to September 30, 1953, providing for continuance of their management of the building for the period of ten years and for payment of $500 monthly by them to defendant and to another co-tenant in full payment of their respective shares of the rents, issues and profits of the premises. Action was brought for judgments declaring that a letter written to the defendant on May 8, 1963 and proposing a refinancing of first mortgage loan against the building was a valid and binding contract, and that 1954 contract had been extended. The defendant counterclaimed to compel two of the plaintiffs, who were co-tenants, to account and pay over to him one-fifth of the sum set up and deducted by them from the rents, issues and profits as and for depreciation.
The Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County, Thomas A. Aurelio, J., entered an order denying the plaintiffs' motion and the defendant's cross-application for summary judgment, and they appealed.
The Appellate Division, Eager, J., modified the order on the law to provide that motion and cross-application for summary judgment were granted to extent of directing judgment declaring that the 1954 contract was not extended by alleged contract set forth in the 1963 letter and defendant's written authorization with respect thereto, and declaring that the 1954 contract expired on September 30, 1963, and directing that issues arising under the counterclaim be remanded for trial, and affirmed the order otherwise. Rabin, J., dissented in part.
The plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Isadore B. Hurwitz, New York City, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Harris & Post, New York City (Harry H. Harris and Seymour Post, New York City, on the brief), for defendant-respondent.
Order affirmed, with costs.
All concur except ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Macmillan, Inc.
... ... See PaineWebber, 81 F.3d at 1199; Janos v. Peck, 21 A.D.2d 529, 532-33, 251 N.Y.S.2d 254, 258-59 (1st Dep't), aff'd, 15 N.Y.2d 509, 202 N.E.2d 560, 254 N.Y.S.2d 115 (1964). "A term is ... ...
-
Cross & Cross Properties, Ltd. v. Everett Allied Co.
... ... Howard Cortlandt St., Inc., 106 A.D.2d 496, 498, 482 N.Y.S.2d 836, 838 (2d Dep't 1984); Janos v. Peck, 21 A.D.2d 529, 535, 251 N.Y.S.2d 254, 261 (1st Dep't), aff'd, 15 N.Y.2d 509, 202 N.E.2d 560, 254 N.Y.S.2d 115 (1964). The contracts between ... ...
-
Rodriguez v. City of N.Y.
...judgment is to narrow the number of issues presented to the jury (see Janos v. Peck, 21 A.D.2d 529, 531 [1964], affd 15 N.Y.2d 509, 254 N.Y.S.2d 115, 202 N.E.2d 560 [1964] ). In a typical comparative negligence trial, the jury is asked to answer five questions:1. Was the defendant negligent......
-
Galin Corp. v. MCI Telecommunications Corp.
... ... Janos v. Peck, 21 A.D.2d 529, 251 N.Y.S.2d 254, 258 (N.Y.App.Div.), aff'd, 15 N.Y.2d 509, 254 N.Y.S.2d 115, 202 N.E.2d 560 (N.Y.1964) ("Where ... there is ... ...