The New York herald., 1920-01-02
0UST|NG TENANT BY
FIVE DAY CLAUSE
UPHELD BY COURT.
Appellate Division Decides AL
legation of objectionable"
Alone Is Sufficient.

In decision of far reaching Importance,
the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court
mas sustained the right of landlords to
terminate leases at will under q five day
clause. leaving thousands of lease holders
IN this city at the mercy of the lessons.
Under the courts ruling landlords, who
nave drafted leases containing the So
called five day clause, may oust tenants
wnom they consider objectionable with
OUT giving any other reason than that they
are undesirable
oeVeral thousand dispossess cases have
Deen held In allegiance in the Municipal
courts awaiting the decision of the APP
pehate Term In the test case presented
oy the Waitt Construction Company
AGAINST. Mrs. Jeanne Lorraine who oc-
cupies an apartment in one of the plain
tifrs houses on the west side. Mrs. Lor-
raihe mad refused to obey an order to
Vacate her apartment within five days
arter the landlord had served notice upon
ner that she was objectionable"
Ihereupon the company began dispossess
proceedings in the Municipal Court, where
the trial Justice dismissed the complaint
on the ground that the five day clause in
the tease gave no right to dispossess pro-
ceedlngs and created condition and not
ala not entitle one to sue for dispossess,
according to the trial Justice, who says
AN appeal was taken from this ruling
oy the company and its right to have
tenants evicted by dispossess was upheld
unanimously by the Appellate Term. JUS
tlce Lehman wrote the concurrent opinion
IN which he said
III the landlord shall at any time deem
Objectionable or improper or undesirable
c0n0llRf a inf rs.a mt
the landlord may at his option terminate
the lease by giving the tenant written
notice of five days of an intention to
terminate the same. In this event. the
right of possession will expire five days
after giving notice. and the tenant agrees
to give peaceable possession"
Many householders in this city are oc-
cupying apartments under leases which
contain clause similar to that involved
in the test case. This clause, of vital in
terest because unscruplous landlords could
avail themselves of the right to oust ten
ants for trifling reasons reads:--
1T Is further agreed that any part of the
clause shah be interpreted to mean that
the character of the tenancy Is to be de-
cided entirely by the landlord and that it
shall not be necessary for the landlord to
prove in what way a tenants conduct
shall have become Objectionable, or i'm
proper or undesirable. the same to be a
matter to be decided by the landlord and
upon the landlords decision TO be bind
ing"
Mrs. Lorraine. answering the company's S
appeal before the Appellate Term, con-
tended that the landlord had failed to set
forth in what way she was "objectiona-
ble," or her continued occupancy "unde-
sirable." Justice Lehman ruled that this
information was unnecessary and said the
complaint was sufficient in it's charges so
far as it affected this phase. Only one
defect was evident in the complaint, and
that was the absence of the charge that
the tenant was undesirable" said the
Justice.
1T may we'll be that the landlord need
not show in fact that the tenancy was un-
desirable or that he had any reasonable
grounds for deeming it undesirable and
yet, since his option to terminate the
lease arises only If he deems the tenancy
undesirable, the petition should allege
this. ~.
This defect Of itself would not justify
the dismissal of the complaint as based
upon erroneous grounds" in the opinion
of the Justice, who orders a new trial
With the complaint being amended in ac-
cordance with the decision to incorporate
the allegation that the tenant is 'unde
sirable," there remains nothing for the
trial court to do but grant the dispossess
Because of the decisions effect, however
II is expected that an appeal will be taker
to the Court of Appeals for fnal Juos'
ment.