Schwartz v. Sterling Drug, Inc.
| Decision Date | 21 October 1949 |
| Parties | Charles SCHWARTZ et al., Corportners Doing Business as Schwartz & Frohlich, Appellants, v. STERLING DRUG, INC., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, 275 App.Div. 833, 89 N.Y.S.2d 893.
Action by Charles Schwartz and others, co-partners, doing business as Schwartz & Frohlich, attorneys, against the Sterling Drug Inc., landlord, and others, for damages from being forced to move from a suite of offices.
The landlord had been unsuccessful in dispossess proceedings brought in 1946 and the complaint of the co-partners charged that the landlord and its fellow defendants made a further endeavor to gain the results sought in the dispossess proceedings. It was charged that they persuaded numerous tenants to sign a so-called stipulation and agreement, a release and a new agreement of lease under which the tenants might remain as such until 1950. It was charged that the documents were prepared by the defendants and that the tenants were compelled to execute them in an endeavor to avoid the provisions of the Emergency Rent Law, McK.Unconsol.Laws, s 8551 et seq. The plaintiffs refused to execute the documents, were successful in their own litigation in the Municipal Court and while an appeal from the order in their favor was pending, moved from the premises. The plaintiffs alleged that they suffered substantial damage from being forced to move from the premises.
From an order of the Special Term denying a motion of the defendants to dismiss the complaint, 85 N.Y.S.2d 494, the defendants appealed. The order was reversed by the Appellate Division, 275 App.Div. 833, 89 N.Y.S.2d 893, and the complaint dismissed upon the ground that it did not state a cause of action, and the plaintiffs appeal.Judgment affirmed, with costs.
All concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Drinkhouse v. Parka Corp.
...v. Fayman, 298 N.Y. 669, 82 N.E.2d 404; Rosner v. Textile Binding & Trimming Co., 300 N.Y. 319, 90 N.E.2d 481; Schwartz v. Sterling Drug., Inc., 300 N.Y. 493, 88 N.E.2d 723 and Magonigle Trucking Co. v. Tambini, 302 N.Y. 617, 96 N.E.2d In our view, appellants' position is well taken. The pr......
-
McLeod v. POMERANC
...a holding would leave the tenant without any remedy or redress whatever for a common-law tort of the landlord. The case of Schwartz v. Sterling Drug (300 N.Y. 493) is distinguishable in that the acts there complained of did not constitute a common-law wrong such as fraud and deceit, breach ......
- In re 500 Fifth Ave. Inc.