Stahl & Jaeger v. Satenstein

• Citation: 233 N.Y. 196,135 N.E. 242
• Parties: STAHL & JAEGER v. SATENSTEIN et al.
• Decision Date: 18 April 1922
• Court: New York Court of Appeals

233 N.Y. 196

135 N.E. 242

STAHL & JAEGER

v.SATENSTEIN et al.

Court of Appeals of New York.

April 18, 1922.

Action by Stahl & Jaeger against Louis Satenstein, trading under the firm name and style of the American Book Bindery, and another. A judgment in favor of plaintiff was reversed by the Appellate Division (194 App. Div. 228,185 N. Y. Supp. 132), and the complaint dismissed, and plaintiff appeals.

Judgment of the Appellate Division reversed, and that of the Special Term affirmed.

Hogan, J., dissenting.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First department.

Thomas F. Dougherty and Donald C. Muhleman, both of New York City, for appellant.

Frederick Hemley and Joseph Fischer, both of New York City, for respondents.

CARDOZO, J.

The plaintiff is the tenant of ‘the entire thirteenth loft or fourteenth floor’ in the building Nos. 406 to 426 West Thirty-First street, in the city of New York. The defendant Satenstein, trading as the American Book Bindery, is the tenant of lower floors in the same building. In May, 1919, with the approval of his landlord, he painted large signs on the easterly and westerly walls of the thirteenth and fourteenth floors. The plaintiff complains of these signs as an infringement of its rights. The suit is brought for their removal.

[1] A lease of an ‘entire floor’ must carry with it the appurtenant right to exclude signs, advertising the business of persons other than the tenant, from those parts of the walls which form the inclosure of the floor. Some cases hold that the outer face of the wall is equally with the inner face a part of the premises demised. Baldwin v. Morgan, 43 Hun, 355; Riddle v. Littlefield, 53 N. H. 503, 16 Am. Rep. 388;Lowell v. Strahan, 145 Mass. 1, 12 N. E. 401,1 Am. St. Rep. 422;Snyder v. Kulesh, 163 Iowa, 748, 144 N. W. 306, L. R. A. 1915B, 1057, Ann. Cas. 1916C, 481;Forbes v. Gorman, 159 Mich. 291, 123 N. W. 1089,25 L. R. A. (N. S.) 318, 134 Am. St. Rep. 718; Hope Bros., Limited, v. Cowan, [1913] 2 Ch. 312.

[2] To decide the case at hand, we do not need to go so far. At least, the tenant will be protected against the misbranding of the business conducted in the space within. The plaintiff did, indeed, covenant that it would not itself install a sign without the license of the landlord. Limitation of use by one was not an enlargement of use by others. The defendant would have us hold that, without redress, the space occupied by a lawyer may be advertised by signs as devoted to the promotion of a gold mine, and an institute of learning as a wareroom for a proprietary medicine. We are unwilling to believe that the tenant is so helpless.

The point is made that the plaintiff is chargeable with notice of the defendant's lease, which was recorded. The only right thereby secured was to place signs on the lower third of the upper 80 feet of the side walls of the building. This third does not include the space in question.

[3] The point is made also that the offending signs, though at...