Case Name: Robert Ernst, App'lt, v. Darius G. Crosby, Ex'r, Resp't
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1892-12-16
Citations: 50 N.Y. St. Rep. 429
Docket Number: 
Parties: Robert Ernst, App'lt, v. Darius G. Crosby, Ex'r, Resp't.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 50
Pages: 429–432

Head Matter:
Robert Ernst, App'lt, v. Darius G. Crosby, Ex'r, Resp't.
(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department,
Filed December 16, 1892.)
Lease—Prostitution.
On reference of a claim against a decedent’s estate for rent under a lease, it appeared that prior and subsequent to its execution the premises were occupied by other persons as a house of prostitution; that negotiations for the lease were had with such persons and a lease drawn to them, but subsequently altered so as to run to the decedent, and that subsequent thereto the lessor collected the rent directly from such persons. Feld, sufficient to warrant a finding that the premises were let for the purpose of being used as a house of prostitution.
(Van Brunt, P. J., dissents.)
Appeal from judgment in favor of defendant, entered on report of referee.
Reference of a disputed claim for rent under a lease.
JS. J. /Spink, for app’lt;
Theo. H. Silkman, for resp’t.

Opinion:
Barrett, J.
The evidence justified the referee's finding that the intention of both parties, lessor and lessee, in making the lease was that the premises should be used as a house of prostitution. The lessor, Morris, knew that the premises had been previously used by the Clarks for such purpose, and the intention was to keep them there in the same business, under cover of a lease for innocent purposes to Mowatt. It was simply a continuation of an existing demise, for Mowatt was also lessee in the prior lease, and the receipts.for rent (paid by the Clarks to the agent, Flanagan, during the existence of this, prior lease) were given in his (M.owatt's) name. Morris knew that Flanagan was agent for the Clarks' landlord, whoever that landlord might be. He knew, also, on April 8, 1889, when he contracted for the purchase- of the premises, that there was an existing lease thereof, which would expire on the first of the following month. This lease was referred to in the contract, although Mowatt's name as lessee was not there specified. Thus, however, Morris had notice either that the Clarks themselves were such lessees, or that they were occupying as subtenants of some unnamed lessee. He knew that the Clarks were paying rent to someone who was Flanagan's principal, for he told Mrs. Clark not to pay Flanagan a small sum which she was about to pay, but to apply such sum to repairing the house. The negotiation for the new lease was between Morris and Mrs. Ciarle. Morris told her that he would give her a long lease, and sent her down to his lawyer to get it. This was with full knowledge of L er business, and of the use to which the house was being put. Mrs. Clark went down to Morris' lawyers, and the new lease was actually made out in the names of the Clarks as lessees. Such lease, so prepared, was even signed by the man Clark. Afterwards this lease was destroyed, and the new lease, as finally made out and signed, ran to Mowatt as lessee. But there was no change whatever in the existing arrangement, except that the Clarks now paid their rent directly to Morris, instead of, as formerly, to the agent Flanagan. The first payment was made almost immediately after the execution of the new lease, namely, on the 1st day of May, 1889. And Mrs. Clark testified that Morris " treated the girls " in the house whenever she paid him the rent. Was Morris, it may be asked, acting as agent for his own nominal lessee, Mowatt, when he collected these rents in this ho.use of prostitution from its proprietress and treated the occupants ? And how did it happen that Mowatt, the existing lessee in the expiring lease, was substituted for the Clarks after Morris had promised Mrs. Clark the new lease, and had sent hero down to his lawyers to obtain it, and even after the new lease had been made out to the Clarks and signed by one of them?
We find no answer to these questions in any testimony offered by the plaintiff, nor do we find any answer to the group of facts and circumstances thus presented by the defendant. Those facts and circumstances, so far as they are material, may be recapitulated as follows:
Morris well knew before he purchased the property, and before he executed the lease in question, that the premises were being occupied and used as a house of prostitution, and that the occupants were paying rent to an agent therefor. Morris, with this knowledge, promised these occupants a new lease, and sent them to his lawyers to have it prepared ; it was so prepared, and then it was destroyed and a lease to Mowatt substituted. Subsequently Morris dealt directly with these occupants, and collected rents from them, with full knowledge of their continuously corrupt use. And he did this without regard to the form of the new lease or to the lessee named therein.
It seems to me that a prima facie case of corrupt purpose on Morris' part when he executed the lease to Mowatt was thus made out, and that such corrupt purpose, to which all the circumstances so convincingly point, called at least for explanation. But such explanation was not forthcoming. Morris was not called as a witness, and Mrs. Clark's testimony with regard to her negotiations and transactions with him personally, although, of course, the testimony is of a tainted character, was uncontradicted. There were crucial parts of her testimony which, if untrue, could easily have been refuted. There were also other parts which were fully corroborated.
Upon the whole, I think the referee's findings were entirely justified, and, as there was no error in the admission or rejection of testimony, or in the legal conclusions deducible from the facts found, the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
O'Brien, J., concurs.