Reld v. Brown
| Decision Date | 24 October 1946 |
| Docket Number | 25134 |
| Citation | 49 A.2d 311,24 N.J.Misc. 350 |
| Parties | ARTHUR S. RELD, PLAINTIFF, v. MILDRED BROWN, DEFENDANT |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
For the plaintiff, Morris Wurgaft.
For the defendant, Joseph A. Lettieri.
On action at law.
Plaintiff was a tenant occupying the second floor of a two-family house owned by defendant at 821 Chestnut Street, Roselle Park. He had received assurances that he was welcome to stay indefinitely and would not be disturbed.
In February, 1946, while plaintiff was in the premises, defendant (and her husband who has since died) apparently began proceedings designed to terminate his tenancy and wrote him a letter of explanation and apology. She said that her daughter needed the apartment occupied by plaintiff and could not use the apartment on the first floor of the same building.
On April 10th, 1946, a certificate was issued by the OPA permitting defendant to dispossess the plaintiff.
On or before June 1st, 1946, defendant's daughter entered into an oral agreement with Thomas C. Bracken who occupied the downstairs apartment in the same premises, to exchange apartments. That is, Bracken was to move into the apartment occupied by plaintiff and defendant's daughter and her family were to move into Bracken's apartment. This change was not approved by defendant. She advised against it but did nothing to prevent it and did not notify either the plaintiff or the OPA, although she knew for at least two weeks before the plaintiff moved that the OPA petition had become untrue.
On June 15th, 1946, plaintiff removed from the premises. He put his furniture into storage and took up temporary lodgings in a furnished apartment. Subsequently, he found an unfurnished apartment and moved a second time between June 15th, 1946 and the trial which was held on October 3d, 1946.
Upon plaintiff's removal, Mr. Bracken moved into his apartment and has been a tenant of the defendant ever since. The defendant's daughter moved into the apartment on the first floor theretofore occupied by Bracken.
I am unimpressed by the reasons given by Mr. Bracken and the defendant's daughter for the change of plans.
Plaintiff claims damages.
The only defense offered is that the defendant did not intend to deceive, that she was honest in her original representations and that she had no part in the change of plans. I believe that she is telling the truth. But, as the owner of the property, she had the power to refuse to permit the change and to refuse to accept Bracken as tenant of the upstairs apartment.
If the representation made on her behalf in order to obtain the OPA certificate was true when made, it became false before the plaintiff acted upon it. The representation of intention was continuous, both to the plaintiff and to the OPA, until the plaintiff had actually removed. It was defendant's duty to reveal the truth at any time before it resulted in the final action, plaintiff's removal.
By her silence when she had a duty to speak, defendant procured a termination of plaintiff's right to remain in the premises secured to him by the federal statute. Since plaintiff was damaged, he has a cause of action for that.
The cause of action here asserted is not statutory, but based on common law principles.
Plaintiff has furnished me with digests of two cases in ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gabriel v. Borowy
...a tenant for the damage sustained by reason of being dispossessed by the fraud of the landlord. It has been held in Reid v. Brown, 49 A.2d 311, 24 N.J.Misc. 350, that an action would lie for depriving the tenant by fraud of his statutory right and that an action would also lie for deceit. I......
-
Powers v. Shore
...Mo.Sup., 242 S.W.2d 572; Crawford v. Pituch, 368 Pa. 489, 84 A.2d 204; Teare v. Sussman, 120 Colo. 488, 210 P.2d 446; Reid v. Brown, 49 A.2d 311, 24 N.J.Misc. 350; Bernofsky v. Rabinowitz, 191 Misc. 382, 77 N.Y.S.2d 608; Alabiso v. Schuster, 273 App.Div. 655, 80 N.Y.S.2d 314; Nyulassie v. M......
-
Gabriel v. Borowy
...compensate a tenant for the damage sustained by reason of being dispossessed by the fraud of the landlord. It has been held in Reid v. Brown, 24 N. J. Misc. 350, that an action would for depriving the tenant by fraud of his statutory right and that an action would also lie for deceit. It wa......
-
Smith v. Bozzi
...2d 190. 5. Murphy v. T. B. O'Toole, Inc., Del. Super., 76 A.2d 313; Lyster v. Berberich, 3 N.J.Super. 78, 65 A.2d 632; see Reid v. Brown, 49 A.2d 311, 24 N.J.Misc. 350. 6. Civil Practice Act, § 1444-a, N.Y.Laws 1948, c. 213, § 1. See H. Kauffman & Sons Saddlery Co. v. Miller, 298 N.Y. 38, 8......