Case Name: HOFF v. ROYAL METAL FURNITURE CO.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1907-03-22
Citations: 103 N.Y.S. 371
Docket Number: 
Parties: HOFF v. ROYAL METAL FURNITURE CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 103
Pages: 371–373

Head Matter:
(117 App. Div. 884)
HOFF v. ROYAL METAL FURNITURE CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
March 22, 1907.)
4. Landlord and Tenant—Leases—Validity—Construction.
A provision in a lease: “Said party of the second part, Its successors or assigns, to have the privilege of renewing this lease from year to year, upon notice to that effect in writing, given on or before the day of the date of the expiration of each and every year, by written notice addressed to the party of the first part at her last known address”—■ is not indefinite, nor void because for perpetual renewals.
2. Same—Renewals.
A mere provision in a lease for renewal means on the terms of the original lease.
Hooker, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Brooklyn, Sixth District.
Action by Annie C. Hoff against the Royal Metal Furniture Company. From an order of dismissal, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
The lease was in writing and was made on May 1, 1903. It was for a term of one year from said May 1 at a yearly rent of $000 payable in equal monthly payments on the 10th day of each month. It also contained the following covenant :
“Said party of the second part, its successors,or assigns, to have the privilege of renewing this lease from year to year, upon notice to that effect la writing, given on or before the day of the date of the expiration of each and every year, by written notice addressed to the party of the first part at her last known address. The party of the second part to have the privilege of purchasing the above property at any time during the continuance of this lease or the renewals thereof, as hereinbefore specified, paying therefor the sum of $6,000, free from all encumbrances.”
Thereafter the tenant (party of the second part) gave such renewal notice each year, and continued as tenant by renewal, until the landlord refused to recognize such renewal notice given in January, 1906, to renew the lease from May 1, 1906, for one year, and on said May 1 instituted this proceeding against the tenant as holding over after the expiration of the term, having given a five days notice to quit and surrender at the end of the year’s lease.
Argued before JENKS, HOOKER, GAYNOR, and MILLER, JJ.
Charles A. Decker, for appellant. ■
■Thaddeus D. Kenneson, for respondent.

Opinion:
GAYNOR, J.
Tlie covenant for renewal's is in no'way indefinite; its specific performance could be decreed. A bare covenant to renew means on the terms of the original lease. Tracy v. Albany Exchange Bank, 7 N. Y. 472, 57 Am. Dec. 538; Western Co. v. Rea, 83 App. Div. 576, 81 N. Y. Supp. 1093. That the covenant is for perpetual yearly renewals does not make it void. Such covenants are lawful and in general use. Rutgers v. Hunter, 6 Johns. Ch. 215, 219; Hare v. Burges, 4 K. & J. 45; Blackmore v. Boardman, 28 Mo. 420.
The case of Western Transportation Co. v. Lansing, 49 N. Y. 499, is not in point. There the covenant was held to be non-enforceable for uncertainty in respect of the term, and also because the landlord had died. I suppose it is proper to say that the opinion is discursive and has to be read with discrimination. The exact point decided is all that serves as a precedent. Colonial City Traction Co. v. Kingston City R. Co. 154 N. Y. 493, 48 N. E. 900.
The final order should be affirmed. All concur except HOOKER, J., who dissents.