Case Name: YANNUZZI v. GRAPE
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1905-03-15
Citations: 92 N.Y.S. 819
Docket Number: 
Parties: YANNUZZI v. GRAPE.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 92
Pages: 819–822

Head Matter:
YANNUZZI v. GRAPE.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
March 15, 1905.)
Leases—Termination—Deposit as Security.
Under a lease which, after a covenant of the lessee to pay rent monthly in advance and the usual covenants of a lease, provided that the lessee shall make a deposit, to be held “during the continuance of” the lease, as security for the payment of the rents and the performance of the covenants contained in the lease, and then provides that in case of default in any of the covenants the landlord may resume possession of the premises and relet, the lessee to make good any deficiency, the lessor having recovered possession by summary proceeding, and thus terminated the lease, is not entitled to retain the deposit as security for any deficiency under the reletting.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 32, Cent Dig. Landlord and Tenant, §§ 743-748.]
Scott, J., dissenting.
Appeal from City Court of New York.
Action by Pasqualo Yannuzzi against James E. Grape. From a judgment for plaintiff after a trial without a jury, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before SCOTT, MacLEAN, and DAVIS, JJ.
Charles A. Gardiner, for appellant
Martin Wechsler, for respondent.

Opinion:
MacLEAN, J.
In October, 1903, the plaintiff went into possession of premises in Fulton street, for a term of five years, under an instrument wherein he covenanted, among other things, to pay the defendant, lessor, monthly in advance, rent at the rate of $1,200 the first year and $1,500 the years thereafter; that if any rent should be due and unpaid, or if default should be made in any of the covenants, it should be lawful for the lessor, herein the defendant, to re-enter the premises and remove all persons therefrom; that in case of default in any of the covenants the landlord might "resume possession of the premises and rent the same for the remainder of the term at the best rent he can obtain for account of the tenant who will make good any deficiency." The plaintiff, then lessee, further agreed to deposit, and did deposit, with the defendant $1,000, to be held by him "during the continuance of this lease as security for the faithful payment of the rents and the performance of the covenants contained in this lease, but the same shall not be deemed a payment of rent under this lease excepting the last month's rent which may become due." On June 16, 1904, rent being unpaid, and $400 being due therefor, including that for the month of June, the plaintiff was removed from, and the defendant recovered possession of, the premises, under a warrant issued in statutory summary proceedings. The plaintiff brought this ac tion for the recovery of the deposit. He has recovered judgment therefor, less the arrears—that is, for $1,000 less $400, besides some interest —under a construction of section 2253, Code Civ. Proc. Under this section of statute the issuing of the warrant for removal of the plaintiff annulled the relation between the parties of landlord and tenant, and canceled the agreement for the use of the premises, i. e., the contract of letting or lease. Whether, in the absence of provision (e. g., as in Hackett v. Richards, 13 N. Y. 138) for resumption of possession other than by the ancient method of re-entry, "coeval with the common law," resort to summary proceedings might affect the covenant to pay deficiency, arising from reletting for account of the plaintiff, formerly the tenant, we are not called upon to decide, particularly as it is conceded that the defendant, whilom the landlord, has chosen to have back again and to keep his own property. Termination of the contract of letting determined the period for which the defendant might hold the deposit as security, namely, during the continuance of the lease. The plaintiff was entitled to his recovery. Fleishauer v. Bell, 44 Misc. Rep. 240, 88 N. Y. Supp. 922.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.