Case Name: Ernest Metzger, Plaintiff, v. Everett M. Price, Defendant
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1911-08
Citations: 73 Misc. 294
Docket Number: 
Parties: Ernest Metzger, Plaintiff, v. Everett M. Price, Defendant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 73
Pages: 294–296

Head Matter:
Ernest Metzger, Plaintiff, v. Everett M. Price, Defendant.
(Supreme Court, Suffolk Trial Term,
August, 1911.)
Landlord and tenant — Rights, duties and liabilities in regard to premises — Repairs, insurance and improvements — Improvements by tenant — Right of tenant to remove fixtures during term — Effect of taking new lease without reservation; Effect of abandonment of premises by tenant.
Where a tenant, who has erected a building on the demised premises and has the right to remove it, thereafter takes a long lease at an increased rental, without reserving the right to remove the building, he thereby loses such right and cannot thereafter remove it.
And where the tenant abandons possession and notifies the .landlord he does not care to occupy longer and she rents the premises to another, the tenant cannot thereafter remove the building.
Actioh to restrain the defendant from removing a building from the lands of the plaintiff.
Furman & Blue, for plaintiff.

Opinion:
Jaycox, J.
The plaintiff is entitled to judgment herein.
A number of years ago the defendant leased of the predecessor in title of the plaintiff a plot of ground upon which he, the defendant, erected a building. He had the privilege of removing this building. Subsequently he sold the building to one Cleaves. Cleaves occupied it, apparently, for a time under the original hiring. He then took a new written lease, in which no mention is made of the privilege of removal. The lease is for an increased rental. It also refers to a return of the premises in' as good condition as when rented, necessary wear and damage by the elements excepted. This latter clause is necessarily indicative of the leasing of a building. The increase of rent would also indicate that there had been a change in the premises rented. The description in the lease is sufficient to cover buildings if they were upon the premises. Hnder these circumstances, it seems to me that the eases of Talbot v. Cruger, 151 N. Y. 117; Loughran v. Ross, 45 id. 792; Stephens v. Ely, 162 id. 79, and Precht v. Howard, 187 id. 136, are decisive of the question.
The defendant claims his right to removal under a bill of sale made to him by Cleaves. Hot only had Cleaves- taken a new lease, but apparently he had abandoned possession of the premises and notified the landlord that he did not care to occupy longer and she had thereupon rented to another tenant who was in possession at or shortly prior to the commencement of -this action. If the right to remove the building had not been lost before, it seems to me it would have been terminated by the abandonment by Cleaves and the acceptance of such abandonment by the landlord.
Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as prayed for in the complaint, with costs.
Judgment for plaintiff.