Levine v. Karkus, 3699.
Decision Date | 17 September 1942 |
Docket Number | No. 3699.,3699. |
Citation | 20 N.J.Misc. 389,28 A.2d 290 |
Parties | LEVINE v. KARKUS. |
Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Proceeding by Sarah Levine against Irwin Karkus to dispossess defendant from premises leased by plaintiff to defendant. On defendant's motion to dismiss proceeding on ground that plaintiff's affidavit was insufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the district court in that there was no allegation of a demand and notice of demand for possession given after the expiration of the term.
Motion denied.
Peter Kay, of Newark, for plaintiff.
Eugene A. Liotta, of Elizabeth, for defendant.
This is a proceeding to dispossess a tenant from premises known as 1610 Summit Avenue, Hillside, New Jersey. The affidavit of the landlord sets out a tenancy from July 1st, 1941, to August 31st, 1942. It further alleges "that on the 21st day of July, 1942 this deponent personally made demand and caused written notice to be served upon said Irwin Karkus * * * a true copy of which notice" is annexed to the affidavit. The affidavit also alleges that the tenant has not quit the premises and holds over without the permission of the landlord. The notice annexed to the affidavit is addressed to the tenant and signed by the landlord, and reads as follows:
"In accordance with the terms of the lease executed by you as tenant and myself, as landlord, for the leasing of five rooms and sun-parlor on the first floor and garage at 1610 Summit Avenue, Hillside, New Jersey, you are hereby notified to quit the aforementioned premises and to deliver possession thereof to me on the expiration date of said lease, to wit, August 31st, 1942."
Counsel for the tenant moves to dismiss the proceedings upon the ground that the foregoing affidavit is insufficient to confer jurisdiction upon this court in that there is no allegation of a demand and notice of demand for possession given after the expiration of the term. The contention is that the notice given on July 22nd, 1942, was only sufficient to terminate the tenancy and that a second demand should have been made and notice given after August 31st, 1942, in order to confer jurisdiction on the court.
The relevant statute is R.S. 2:32-265, subd. a, N.J.S.A. 2:32-265, subd. a:
Defendant relies upon Perth Amboy Iron & Metal Company v. Ellis, 1923, 1 N.J. Misc. 154, in which...
To continue reading
Request your trial