Case ID: misc_128/html/0463-02.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

Rubett Realty Corporation, Respondent, v. “ John ” Uretzski and Others, Appellants.
    Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
    December 24, 1926.
    Landlord and tenant — action for rent — tenants permitted to prove facts, arising since prior adjudication, which were set up as separate defense (Rent Laws, § 7) — landlord entitled to bill of particulars.
    In an action for rent the tenants should be permitted to prove facts set up in a separate defense which had arisen since the period for which a prior adjudication had been made, since said defense is a proper pleading under section 7 of the Rent Laws (added by Laws of 1921, chap. 434); the landlord may avail himself of a bill of particulars if he requires details of such defense.
    Levy, J., dissents.
    Appeal by tenants from final order and order of the Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Sixth District, entered in favor of the landlord.
    
      F. II. LaGuardia [Alvin S. Bosenson of counsel], for the appellants.
    
      Geza Eichhorn, for the respondent.
   Per Curiam.

The separate defense alleged, facts, ultimate though they may be, which had arisen since the period for which a prior adjudication had been made. It was, therefore, a proper pleading under section 7 of the Rent Laws (as added to Laws of 1920, chap. 136, by Laws of 1921, chap. 434), and the tenants should have been permitted to prove such facts. If the landlord required details of such defense it should have procured the evidentiary facts by way of bill of particulars.

Final order, judgment and order striking out defense reversed and a new trial ordered, with ten dollars costs to appellants, and motion to strike out defense denied.

Present — Bijur, O’Malley and Levy, JJ.; Levy, J., dissents.