Case Name: Ernest A. Cardozo, as Sole Surviving Trustee, etc., Appellant, v. Ella A. Borden, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1925-02-27
Citations: 124 Misc. 508
Docket Number: 
Parties: Ernest A. Cardozo, as Sole Surviving Trustee, etc., Appellant, v. Ella A. Borden, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 124
Pages: 508–508

Head Matter:
Ernest A. Cardozo, as Sole Surviving Trustee, etc., Appellant, v. Ella A. Borden, Respondent.
Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
February 27, 1925.
Landlord and tenant — lease — notice from landlord to tenant indicating election to terminate lease of premises as of certain date and increasing rent does not operate as renewal of lease.
A notice from a landlord electing to terminate a lease as of a certain date and . indicating that after that date the rent, will be increased does not operate as a renewal of the lease, particularly where the evidence discloses that a large part of the premises is leased to various subtenants and that the premises are not actually being occupied by the tenant.
Appeal by landlord from final order of the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Manhattan, Fifth District, in favor of the tenant, dismissing the landlord’s petition at the end. of the landlord’s case, after trial by the court with a jury.
Sidney B. Cardoso [Edward S. Qreenbaum of counsel], for the appellant.
Bloomberg & Bloomberg [Harry A. Bloomberg of counsel], for the respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam:
The tenant holding under a lease received a notice from the landlord electing to terminate the lease on October 1, 1924. It contained a further provision that after that date the rent or the rental value would be $4,500 per year. The tenant refused to vacate and claims that the notice operated as a renewal of the lease. There is no basis whatever for such a claim. The tenant also rests upon the rent laws and the landlord counters by showing indisputably that a large part of the premises is rented out to various subtenants for various purposes and that the premises are not really being occupied by the tenant. The judgment dismissing the petition is clearly wrong and must be reversed. (Davies v. Aylan, 123 Misc. 932; Nystad & Krassner, Inc., v. Zerbe, 210 App. Div. 217.)
Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with thirty dollars costs to the appellant to abide the event.
All concur; present, Guy, McCook and Proskauer, JJ.