Case ID: ny-st-rep_43/html/0123-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Bookstaver, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

George L. Kingsland et al., App’lts, v. John Hall, Resp’t.
    
      (New York Common Pleas, General Term,
    
    
      Filed January 4, 1892.)
    
    Summary pboceedings—Vebdict.
    _ In summary proceedings to eject a tenant, the latter denied the allegations of the petition, and set up a new oral lease for one year. The evidence as to the making of such lease was conflicting, but there was sufficient evidence, if believed, to authorize a finding that one was made. Held, that a verdict in favor of the tenant would not be disturbed.
    
      Appeal taken by the landlords from a final order of the district court in the city of New York, for the third judicial district, dismissing summary proceedings to recover the possession of premises on the corner of Bank and West streets in the city of New York for non-payment of rent
    
      John A. Taylor, for app’lts; William B. Barrichlo, for resp’t.
   Bookstaver, J.

The proceeding was commenced in the district court of the city of New York, for the third judicial district, on the 5th of May, 1891, by the service of a precept on the tenant, to which he interposed an answer denying that the landlords-were entitled to the possession of the premises, or that the term had expired, or that he held over after the expiration of the term; and setting up a new oral lease of the premises from the plaintiffs for the term of one year from the 1st May, 1891, at a yearly rental of $1,500. The issues so raised were tried by the justice in the court below with a jury. No exceptions were taken by the-landlord to the rulings upon the trial, or to the charge of the justice. The jury found that the landlord was not entitled to the possession of the premises. The reason for this verdict seems to-have been that the jury believed that an oral lease for one year had been made between the landlords and the tenant on the 8th April, 1891.

There can be no question but that an oral lease for one year to-commence in futuro is as valid as if it were in writing, and so-the only question to be considered on this appeál is whether the verdict of the jury was in accord with justice and based upon the evidence.

The chief point of contention was whether or not the oral lease-was made as claimed by the tenant There is sufficient evidence, in our opinion, from which the jury could properly infer that the minds of the parties met at that time and that a lease was then consummated. It is true that there is much evidence to the contrary of this, but the jury had the advantage of hearing the testimony of the various witnesses, and it was within their province to give such weight to the evidence as they thought proper, and it is not in the power of the court to set aside such verdict, unless it is clear that it was the result of passion, prejudice, mistake or corruption, or without evidence to support it, or so-against a striking preponderance of evidence that the exercise of common judgment demands its reversal. Morss v. Sherrill, 6 Barb., 21; Sherwood v. Hauser, 94 N. Y., 626; Bannwart v. Bohemian Brewing Co., 29 St. Rep., 306; Dempsey v. Paige, 4 E. D. Smith, 218; Donohue v. Henry, id., 164.

We therefore think that the final order dismissing the proceedings should be affirmed, with costs.

■ Bischoff, J., concurs.