Stern v. Equitable Trust Co. of New York
| Decision Date | 20 May 1924 |
| Parties | STERN v. EQUITABLE TRUST CO. OF NEW YORK. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Submission of controversy between Madeleine S. Stern and the Equitable Trust Company of New York, as executor of the last will and testament of Joseph Rosenthal, deceased, on an agreed statement of facts. From a judgment of the Appellate Division (208 App. Div. 13,203 N. Y. Supp. 91), in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First department.
Lewis M. Isaacs, of New York City, for appellant.
Samuel L. Jackson and Louis Werner, both of New York City, for respondent.
The question is as to the effect of the emergency rent laws on the liability of a tenant for a definite term of a year or years, who holds over after the expiration of the term and thereby comes with the protection of the laws. People ex rel. Durham Realty Corp. v. La Fetra, 230 N. Y. 429, 130 N. E. 601, 16 A. L. R. 152.
Appellant contends that such a tenant, although he may be neither evicted as a trespasser nor bound for another year for the stipulated rent, or the increased rent, if the rent is raised, is held as a tenant for another year at a reasonable rental.
Respondent contends that the emergency rent laws have created a new tenancy and a new class of tenants, known as statutory tenants, who may at will remove from the leased premises at any time after the expiration of the term, and are liable only for a reasonable rental for the time they are in actual occupation after the expiration of the term agreed on.
[1] The relation of landlord and tenant is always created by contract, express or implied, and will not be implied where the acts and conduct of the parties negative its existence. The rule that a tenant who holds over after the expiration of a definite term for a year or years may be treated by his landlord as a trespasser or as a tenant from year to year, subject to the conditions of the original lease, except as to duration and amount of rent, if the landlord has raised the rent, is based on the theory of an option implied in law, tendered by the tenant to the landlord which he is at liberty to accept or reject. Haynes v. Aldrich, 133 N. Y. 287, 31 N. E. 94,28 Am. St. Rep. 636. If the elements of offer and acceptance, express or implied, are absent, the relation of landlord and tenant does not exist.
[2] The primary, but not the only, purpose of the emergency rent laws was to prevent the wholesale eviction of tenants who were willing to pay a reasonable rent, but who could not agree with their landlords as to the amount to be paid. By suspending possessory remedies under the lease, these laws extended, against the will of the landlord, the right of the tenant to remain in possession of the leased premises so long as he continued to pay what the laws style ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fisher v. Burke
...559 (1977), D'Alto v. 22-24 129th St., LLC , 76 A.D.3d 503, 506, 906 N.Y.S.2d 79 (2nd Dept. 2010). See Also Stern v. Equitable Tr. Co. , 238 N.Y. 267, 269, 144 N.E. 578 (1924), Hispano Americano Advert. v. Dryer , 112 Misc 2d 936, 937, 448 N.Y.S.2d 128 (Civ. Ct. NY Co. 1982) (Saxe, J.), Sca......
-
Marrano v. State
...257 N.Y.S.2d 498; Walker v. State, 15 Misc.2d 4, 178 N.Y.S.2d 507; Geist v. State, 3 Misc.2d 714, 156 N.Y.S.2d 183; Stern v. Equitable Trust Co., 238 N.Y. 267, 144 N.E. 578. Secondly, we do not find the State liable under an implied in law contract. An implied in law or quasi contract is no......
-
Lyddy v. Ayling
...landlord and tenant can only be created by contract requiring proof of offer and acceptance, express or implied (Stern v. Equitable Trust Co., 238 N.Y. 267, 269, 144 N.E. 578 Geist v. State of New York, 3 Misc.2d 714, 156 N.Y.S.2d 183 1 Rasch, Landlord and Tenant, Summary Proceedings, 2nd E......
-
Committee For Preservation of Fresh Meadows, Inc. v. Fresh Meadows Associates
...of such occupancy and for the period of the emergency (Wasservogel v. Meyerowitz, 300 N.Y. 125, 89 N.E.2d 712; Stern v. Equitable Trust Co., 238 N.Y. 267, 144 N.E. 578; Penfield v. Murray Hill Holding Corp. 281 App.Div. 675, 117 N.Y.S.2d 589, affd. 306 N.Y. 602, 115 N.E.2d 830; Fireman v. N......