Case ID: misc2d_18/html/0242-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ford Holding Corp., Respondent, v. Emanuel Goldring et al., Doing Business as Park Lane Interiors, Appellants.
    Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,
    June 24, 1959.
    
      
      I. Stanley Stein for appellants.
    
      Jach Vogel for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

Tenants’ alleged breach of covenant to pay any increase in the fire insurance rate caused by his occupancy did not constitute a default in the payment of rent which would authorize the maintenance of a summary proceeding. (Bien v. Bixby, 18 Misc. 415, 418; cf. Haskel v. 60 West 53rd St. Corp., 138 Misc. 595, affd. 231 App. Div. 800.)

The order should be unanimously reversed upon the law, with $10 costs to tenant and petition dismissed without prejudice to the institution of a plenary action, if landlord be so advised, to recover the moneys claimed to be due from tenant.

Concur — Pette, Hart and Brown, JJ.

Order reversed, etc.