Case ID: misc_160/html/0141-01.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

E. Lawrence Levin, Respondent, v. Eleto Realty Corporation, Appellant.
    
    Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
    March 6, 1936.
    
      Miller & Caniell, for the appellant.
    
      E. Lawrence Levin, for the respondent.
    
      
       Revg. 157 Misc. 180; leave to appeal to Appellate Division denied by Appellate Term March 24, 1936, and by Appellate Division April 15,1936.
    
   Per Curiam.

The facts presented do not justify a holding that the failure of the landlord to supply a new lock or to supply other mouldings on the door was the proximate cause for the loss which occurred. The evidence does not establish that the loss in the manner testified to could have been reasonably anticipated so as to impose further duty to repair the condition complained of.

Judgment reversed, with thirty dollars costs, and complaint dismissed on the merits.

All concur. Present — Lydon, Hammer and FrankenthaJJ.