Case ID: nys_54/html/1116-08.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SOKOL, Respondent, v. COHEN, Appellant.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    December 13, 1898.)
    Action by Julius Sokol against Bioses Cohen.
   PER CURIAM.

We think the plaintiff was entitled to recover back a portion of the sum deposited, but not the whole, as the defendant has expended the sum of $37 for repairs which plaintiff was hound to do, that should have been offset against the deposit. This sum and the extra costs allowed by reason of the fact that the recovery exceeded $50 should he deducted, thus reducing the amount of the judgment to ■ the sum of $41.22, and, as so modified, the judgment will be affirmed, without costs. Judgment modified, and, as modified, affirmed, without .costs.