Lyon v. Bethlehem Eng'g Corp.
| Decision Date | 11 February 1930 |
| Citation | 170 N.E. 512,253 N.Y. 111 |
| Parties | LYON et al. v. BETHLEHEM ENGINEERING CORPORATION et al. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Action by Nellie Lyon and another against the Bethlehem Engineering Corporation and others. From a judgment of the Appellate Division (226 App. Div. 882, 235 N. Y. S. 832), affirming a judgment of Special Term dismissing plaintiffs' complaint, plaintiffs appeal.
Judgment of the Appellate Division and that of the Special Term reversed, and judgment directed for plaintiffs.
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First department.
Dominic B. Griffin, James J. McLoughlin, and Peter P. Smith, all of Brooklyn, for appellants.
George W. Alger, or New York City, for respondents.
On March 23, 1922, the plaintiffs leased to the defendant Bethlehem Engineering Corporation certain real property situated on the corner of Broadway and Fifty-First street, in the city of New York, for a term of twenty-one years. The premises were described by metes and bounds. At the time there was a building on the premises. The lessee contracted to demolish the building and build a twelve-story building in place thereof. The lease provides that the building to be erected ‘is to be used for the following purposes, and those only: Restaurant, stores, store-rooms and offices in the first floor and basement; and for offices, showrooms, and sales-rooms for the remaining upper floors, such use of all parts of said premises, however, to conform at all times to the provisions of all laws.’
After the building was erected the lessee assigned the lease to the defendant 1650 Broadway Corporation. It leased to the defendant Roxy Theatres Corporation the right to attach to the roof of the building, and to maintain thereon, an electric sign built of steel, forty feet in height and sixty feet long. The plaintiffs deemed the erection of such a structure on the roof of the building to be a violation of the terms of the lease and commenced this action to enjoin the defendants from erecting, operating, or maintaining the same.
A tenant, in the absence of restrictions contained in a lease, may use a leased building in any lawful way not materially different from that to which it is adapted, and for which it was constructed. The right to exclusive occupation granted by a lease entitles a tenant to use the premises in the same manner that the owner might have used them. He must not, however, do anything to the injury of the inheritance or which constitutes waste. Presby v. Benjamin, 169 N. Y. 377, 62 N. E. 430,57 L. R. A. 317;Bovin v. Galitzka, 250 N. Y. 228, 165 N. E. 273.
The landlord may, however, by express provisions in a lease, limit and restrict the use of a building to specific purposes. He has a legal right to control the uses to which his building may be put and may do so by appropriate provisions in a lease. A landlord who seeks to limit a tenant's right to the exclusive use and occupation of a building must be able to point to some particular term of the lease which expressly restricts the tenant's rights, Round Lake Ass'n v. Kellogg, 141 N. Y. 348, 36 N. E. 326; Presby v. Benjamin, supra.
As the lease in question describes the premises by metes and bounds, the lessee became entitled to the exclusive use and possession of the entire premises, the roof of the building as well as the basement. Although the subject of signs was not mentioned in the lease, the lessee, as an incident of the lease, acquired the right to use the roof and side walls of the building for the purpose of placing appropriate signs thereon to advertise any business which might be lawfully carried on in the building under the terms of the lease.
In those cases in which it has been decided the tenant had the right to place a sign on the wall of a leased building the lease did not restrict the rights of the tenant in that respect. Brown v. Broadway & 72d Street Realty Co., 131 App. Div. 780, 116 N. Y. S. 306; Baldwin v. Morgan, 43 Hun, 355; Lowell v. Strahan, 145 Mass. 1, 12 N. E. 401,1 Am. St. Rep. 422;Riddle v. Littlefield, 53 N. H. 503, 16 Am. Rep. 388.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baron Bros., Inc. v. National Bank of S. D., Sioux Falls
...Annotation 1148; 32 Am.Jur., Landlord and Tenant, §§ 76 and 195; Noon v. Mironski, 58 Wash. 453, 108 P. 1069; Lyon v. Bethlehem Engineering Corp., 253 N.Y. 111, 170 N.E. 512; Turman v. Safeway Stores, 132 Mont. 273, 317 P.2d 302. This right of a tenant has been said to be the use of the pre......
-
Woodman, Matter of
...an award for the actual, although unusual and unexpected, condition which has developed as a result of the accident. * * * " Id. at 170 N.E. 512. In Graham, a worker with preexisting injuries to his fingers suffered total loss of function of the thumb. The plaintiff contended that "by reaso......
-
Monarch Accounting Supplies, Inc. v. Prezioso
...Central Coat, Apron & Linen Service, Inc. v. Indemnity Ins. Co., 136 Conn. 234, 237, 70 A.2d 126. See Lyon v. Bethlehem Engineering Corporation, 253 N.Y. 111, 113, 170 N.E. 512; 49 Am.Jur.2d, Landlord and Tenant, §§ 82, The instrument of lease demising the property to the plaintiff describe......
-
Rumiche Corp. v. Eisenreich
...which materially injure or change the nature and character of the premises or structure such as to constitute waste (Lyon v. Bethlehem Eng. Corp., 253 N.Y. 111, 170 N.E. 512; Bovin v. Galitzka, 250 N.Y. 228, 165 N.E. 273; Andrews v. Day Button Co., 132 N.Y. 348, 353, 30 N.E. 831, 832). Volu......