Case ID: ad_61/html/0429-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Woodward, J.:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Blanche E. Watson, Respondent, v. Raymond F. Almirall, Appellant.
    
      Landlord and tenant—rule of caveat emptor applied— the fact that partial repairs are made does not affect the rule.
    
    A rule similar to that of caveat emptor applies to the leasing of property, and throws upon the lessee the responsibility of examining the demised premises for defects and of providing against their consequences.
    The lessee must run the risk of the condition of the property unless he has made an express-agreement with the lessor covering that subject.
    The fact that the lessee made a demand for repairs after signing the lease, and that this demand was, in a measure, complied with, does not operate to create a new or collateral contract which will relieve the lessee, who visited the premises before signing the lease, from the consequences of the general rule.
    
      Appeal by the defendant, Raymond F. Almirall, from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, borough of Brooklyn, in favor- of the plaintiff, rendered on the 15th day of October, 1900, upon the decision of the court. .
    
      Franeis P. Garran, for the appellant.
    
      Robert-H. Roy, for the respondent.
   Woodward, J.:

■ The plaintiff brings this action to recover one'month’s rent under the provisions of a written lease of the premises known as 79 Downing street, Brooklyn. The trial resulted in á judgment in her favor for the amount claimed, and the defendant appeals to this court, urging, with great show of earnestness and industry, that the court below has improperly disposed of the • case. The essential facts, appear to be less strong in fa.v.or of the defendant than those: involved in Franklin v. Brown (118 N. Y. 110), and we are of opinion that under the doctrine of that case the defendant is liable for the rent. The lease contained no covenant to repair .or to keep in repair, and no express covenant that the house was tit to live. in. It is universally held in this State that the lessee of real property must run- the risk of its condition, unless hé has an éxpress agreement on the part of the lessor covering that subject. The tenant hires at his peril, and a rule similar to that of orneat emryptor applies and throws on the lessee the responsibility of examining as to the existence of defects in the premises' and of providing against their ill-effects. (Franklin v. Brown, supra, 115.) The fact that the defendant made a demand for repairs after signing the lease, and that this demand’ was in a measure complied with, does not operate to make a new or collateral contract, and the defendant having visited the premises before signing the lease, and no fraud on the part of the plaintiff being alleged or proved, the. judgment of the Municipal Court should be affirmed.

The judgment appealed from should be affirmed, with 'costs.

All concurred.

Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.