Case ID: nys_90/html/0369-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BISCHOFF, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

PERNICIARO et al. v. VENIERO.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    November 10, 1904.)
    L Landlord and Tenant—Eviction—Suspension of Rent.
    Where a landlord unjustly excluded his tenant from a substantial portion of the demised premises, there was an eviction, and the rent was suspended.
    Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Fourth District.
    Summary proceedings by Salvatore Perniciaro against Antonio Veniero. From an order dismissing the same, plaintiffs appeal.
    Affirmed.
    Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and BISCHOFF and FITZGERALD, JJ.
    Edward J. Kelly, for appellants.
    A. M. Zuzzolino, for respondent.
   BISCHOFF, J.

The landlords excluded the tenant from a substantial portion of the demised premises—a space about six feet square— and the evidence justified the finding that the act of exclusion was not compelled by the order of the building department, so far as to necessitate an interference with this tenant’s possession, assuming that compulsion would excuse the eviction. There is nothing to distinguish the situation from that presented in Hamilton v. Graybill, 19 Misc. Rep. 521, 43 N. Y. Supp. 1079, and, under the rule applied in that case, the rent was suspended.

Final order affirmed, with costs. All concur. 
      
       1. See Landlord and Tenant, vol. 32, Cent. Dig. §§ 697, 766.