Case Name: FLITNER, Respondent, v. WILLET PRESS, Appellant
Court: New York City Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1901-12
Citations: 74 N.Y.S. 1127
Docket Number: 
Parties: FLITNER, Respondent, v. WILLET PRESS, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 74
Pages: 1127–1127

Head Matter:
FLITNER, Respondent, v. WILLET PRESS, Appellant.
(City Court of New York, General Term.
December, 1901.)
Action by William H. F’litner against the Willet Press.
Nelson S. Spencer and M. Edward Kelley, for appellant.
Cardozo & Nathan (Edgar J. Nathan, of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion:
HASCALL, J.
The respondent's building, in part under lease, occupied by appellant, was damaged by fire, and the action is to recover for rentals after repairs made to the premises. The main question arose under a covenant and was perfectly submitted to the jury by the learned trial court. This was as to whether the damages were so extensive as to render the premises untenantable, or whether appellant waited a reasonable time for respondent to make repairs, and whether repairs were begun and completed within proper time. The jury found the facts with the plaintiff, and, under the evidence, we cannot say that, as a matter of law, appellant was justified in an abandonment, as under Bacon v. Paper Co., 22 Misc. Rep. 592, 49 N. Y. Supp. 620, and Nimmo v. Harway, 23 Misc. Rep. 126, 50 N. Y. Supp. 686, we. might well do so were the fac-ts different. But here it appears that what might have been held on reasonable delay, ns a matter of law, still in the peculiar circumstances remained of fact, because of the kind and condition of appellant's business, which was to be considered. The refusal of requests to charge upon abstract questions does not make ground for reversal. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.