Case Name: CAIRNES v. WALTER
Court: New York City Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1894-03-09
Citations: 27 N.Y.S. 973
Docket Number: 
Parties: CAIRNES v. WALTER.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 27
Pages: 973–974

Head Matter:
(7 Misc. Rep. 431.)
CAIRNES v. WALTER.
(City Court of New York, General Term.
March 9, 1894.)
Landlord and Tenant—Agreement to Repair.
Where the complaint in an action by a lessee against his lessor alleges that defendant induced plaintiff to take the lease by promising to put the premises in proper condition, and that plaintiff entered into' such lease, and paid rent, relying on defendant’s promise, it sufficiently states a cause of action for damages for breach of the agreement which induced the making of the lease.
Appeal from special term.
Action by Alice Cairnes against Emanuel Walter. From an order overruling a demurrer to the complaint, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before VAJST WYCK, HEWBURGER, and MCCARTHY, JJ.
Marcus Newburg, for appellant.
L. R. Beckley, for respondent.

Opinion:
MCCARTHY, J.
The appellant demurs to plaintiff's complaint on the ground that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. This was overruled. In determining the correctness of this ruling and the sufficiency of this pleading, the whole complaint must be considered. This is not an action for damages-by reason of any breach of a covenant in the lease, but for damages by reason of a breach of the agreement which induced the-making of the lease, to wit, that the defendant, knowing the premises were untenantable and uninhabitable, would put the samé in proper condition; that, believing and relying on such representations and promise, the plaintiff was induced to and did make, accept, and enter into and under such lease, and paid and continued to pay rent until July, relying on the promises of the defendant to do as he agreed to do. The consideration for such work was the taking of the lease. See Gartledge v. Crespo, 5 Misc. Rep. 349-351, 25 N. Y. Supp. 515; Reynolds v. Robinson, 110 N. Y. 654, 18 N. E. 127. We think the complaint,' while not drawn in the most artistic manner, yet, when talten as a whole, fairly states a cause of action, and that the demurrer was properly overruled. The defendant, in our opinion, has misunderstood the cause of action set forth in the complaint. The order overruling demurrer should be affirmed, with leave, however, to the defendant to answer within 10 days on payment of the costs of appeal. All concur.