Case Name: Homes Leasing Corporation, Respondent, v. " Harry " Eisenstadt and Forty-eight Other Tenants of Premises 124 and 126 East One Hundred and Third Street, Borough of Manhattan, City of New York, Appellants; Homes Leasing Corporation, Respondent, v. " Max " Bloom and Twenty Other Tenants of Premises 122 East One Hundred and Third Street, Borough of Manhattan, City of New York, Appellants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1924-12-18
Citations: 124 Misc. 168
Docket Number: 
Parties: Homes Leasing Corporation, Respondent, v. “ Harry ” Eisenstadt and Forty-eight Other Tenants of Premises 124 and 126 East One Hundred and Third Street, Borough of Manhattan, City of New York, Appellants. Homes Leasing Corporation, Respondent, v. “ Max ” Bloom and Twenty Other Tenants of Premises 122 East One Hundred and Third Street, Borough of Manhattan, City of New York, Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 124
Pages: 168–169

Head Matter:
Homes Leasing Corporation, Respondent, v. “ Harry ” Eisenstadt and Forty-eight Other Tenants of Premises 124 and 126 East One Hundred and Third Street, Borough of Manhattan, City of New York, Appellants. Homes Leasing Corporation, Respondent, v. “ Max ” Bloom and Twenty Other Tenants of Premises 122 East One Hundred and Third Street, Borough of Manhattan, City of New York, Appellants.
Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
December 18, 1924.
Trial — verdict — Civil Practice Act, § 467a, does not apply where only issue is amount of unliquidated claim — error to direct verdict.
The court cannot, under section 457a of the Civil Practice Act, direct a verdict where the only issue is the amount of an unliquidated claim, and furthermore it should not have directed a verdict in this case since there were substantial questions of fact involved.
Appeal by defendants from judgments of the Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Sixth District, rendered in favor of plaintiff after trials by a judge and jury.
Samuel Ecker, for the appellants.
Nathan D. Stern, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam:
The learned trial court has directed verdicts in these cases upoi the assumption that a verdict for a less amount would have to be set aside as against the weight of evidence. He has granted $ twenty-five per cent increase in rent, making, as he indicates, wha he thought were generous allowances to the tenants to cover al possible questions of fact.
In our opinion the judgments must be reversed and new trials had because section 457a of the Civil Practice Act, if it be con stitutional, cannot under any circumstances apply to actions wher< the only issue is the amount of an unliquidated claim, and then can, therefore, be no " contrary " verdict. Moreover, substantia questions of fact were involved, both as to the credibility of wit nesses and as to the amount of repairs for which allowance has been made.
Judgments reversed and new trial ordered, with fifteen dollars costs to appellants in each appeal.
All concur; present, Bijur, Wagner and Levy, JJ.