#### Harry Abberbock and Others, Copartners Engaged in Business under the Firm Name and Style of Abberbock, Rosenfeld & Bloom, Respondents, *v.*Jacob Lamchick and Others, Appellants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

April 9, 1925.

Landlord and tenant — lease—action for rent — reversible error to direct verdict for landlord where patent ambiguity exists as to identity of tenants.

In an action for rent it is reversible error to direct a verdict in favor of the landlord, where both in the lease itself and the notice of the exercise of an option, a patent ambiguity exists as to the identity of the tenants, that is, whether the lease was executed by the defendants, individually, or on behalf of a corporation or copartnership.

Appeal by two individual defendants from a judgment of the City Court of the City of New York in favor of plaintiffs, entered upon a directed verdict.

*Leonard Bronner [Samuel Sumner Goldberg*of counsel], for the appellants.

*Joseph & Demov [Jacob S. Demov*of counsel], for the respondents.

Per Curiam:

This action was brought for rent under a lease. The original lease describes the parties as *“*Abberbock, Rosenfeld and Bloom, party of the first part ” and *“*Jacob Lamchick * * * Louis Lamchick * * * doing business as Lamchick, Frank & Co., Inc., party of the second part.” It is signed *“*Abberbock, Rosenfeld & Bloom, per Harry Abberbock, and Louis Lamchick, per Lamchick, Frank & Co.” In the body of the lease occurs the clause: “ The parties of the second part (Lamchick,— Frank Company.) are here given an option of an additional two years’ lease * * *.” The option was exercised in a letter addressed to plaintiffs signed “ Lamchick Frank Co., Inc.”

It is not necessary to review the authorities which distinguish between the liability of an individual on a written instrument signed by him in his own name followed by words which are merely *descriptio per.sonce*and those which release him from individual liability under such ,and similar, circumstances when it is plain from the body 'of' the' instrument' 'that he was regarded as a mere agent for a known principal. In the instant case, both through the lease itself and the notice of the exercise of the option, there is a patent ambiguity which cannot be resolved except in the ordinary way upon a trial of the issues.

Respondents urge that although the .individual defendants are *748described in the lease as doing business as a corporation, they are, nevertheless, spoken of throughout the lease in the plural, as “parties of the second part.” Against that, however, the plaintiffs, concededly copartners, are described as “ party.” The option of extension is awarded to “ the parties of the second part (Lamchick Frank Company),” omitting, it will be observed, the word “ Inc.” Even if the signature “ Louis Lamchick, per Lamchick Frank Company ” be treated as the individual signature of the defendant Louis Lamchick, it is not easy to understand how the lease would bind Jacob Lamchick. And finally it is a question what intention of the parties may be indicated by the signing and acceptance of the notice of renewal signed by “ Lamchick Frank Co., Inc.” Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellants to abide the event.

All concur; present, Bijtjr, Mitchell and Proskatjer, JJ.