Case ID: nj-super_103/html/0161-01.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

WILLIAM B. NATELL, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. HENRY HENLEY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, AND MAYFAIR FABRICS, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
    Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division
    Argued September 30, 1968
    Decided October 11, 1968.
    See also 101 N. J. Super. 363.
    
      Before Judges Coneoed, Kilkenny and Leonard.
    
      Mr. Robert F. Golquhoun argued the cause for appellant.
    
      Mr. Allan Maitlin argued the cause for respondent (Messrs. Feuerstein & Sachs, attorneys; Mr. Peter 8. Valentine, on the brief).
   Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed essentially for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Judge Ackerman in the Law Division, 97 N. J. Super. 116 (1967), except those based upon the incidence of subrogation in favor of the landlord’s insurer. The insurance company is not a party to this appeal (even if it is the real party in interest as a subrogee); its contractual rights vis-a-vis the landlord are not here involved;, and the lease in question should be read and interpreted to ascertain the mutual intention of the sole parties to it, landlord and tenant, just as the Supreme Court did in the case where the tenant was suing the landlord, Mayfair Fabrics v. Henley, 48 N. J. 483 (1967).

Judgment affirmed.