Case Name: David Stevenson Brewing Company, Appellant, v. The Junction Realty Company, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1913-04-18
Citations: 156 A.D. 271
Docket Number: 
Parties: David Stevenson Brewing Company, Appellant, v. The Junction Realty Company, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 156
Pages: 271–277

Head Matter:
David Stevenson Brewing Company, Appellant, v. The Junction Realty Company, Respondent.
First Department,
April 18, 1913.
Landlord and tenant — parol agreement to reduce rent — specific performance—judgment modified.
Suit to compel specific performance by a landlord of an agreement, not under seal, whereby he agreed to reduce the rent reserved by a lease under seal.
Held, that the agreement to reduce the rent was never executed within the meaning of the rule that a contract or covenant under seal cannot be modified by a parol unexecuted agreement and the complaint was properly dismissed.
As the case presented no issue regarding the duty of the plaintiff with respect to orders issued by the bureau of buildings and the tenement house department which it was necessary to decide, it was improper for the trial court to include conclusions of law relating thereto in the decision, and the judgment affirming the decision will be modified by striking out the words “on the merits.”
Laugh lust, J., dissented, with opinion.
Appeal by the plaintiff, the David Stevenson Brewing Company, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendant, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 9th day of July, 1912, upon the decision of the court, rendered after a trial at the New York Special Term, dismissing the complaint upon the merits.
Douglas Campbell, for the appellant.
Alfred B. Nathan, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Scott, J.:
The evidence is by no means satisfactory that the written agreement to reduce the rent was accompanied by an oral condition which, being unfulfilled, rendered it inoperative. The question is not important, however, because, for other reasons, the judgment appealed from is right.
The lease was under seal, the agreement to reduce the rent was not. It is settled law that a contract or covenant under seal cannot be modified by a parol unexecuted agreement. (McKenzie v. Harrison, 120 N. Y. 260.) In this case the agreement to reduce the rent was never executed, in the sense in which that word is used in the statement of the rule, because it was never carried out. As was said in a recent case: ' ' While the agreement to reduce the rent remained unexecuted, it was void and inoperative. The lessors had the right to repudiate it at any time and demand the full amount of rent provided for in the lease." (Zindler v. Levitt, 132 App. Div. 397.)
Furthermore, if a valid modification of the lease had" been made, the plaintiff could have raised the question as to the amount of' rent due in the Municipal Court under section 2244 of the Code of Civil Procedure as it now stands, and, therefore, a resort to equity was unnecessary.
The decision contains two conclusions of law (second and third) declaring what was the duty of the plaintiff with respect to the orders issued by the bureau of buildings and the tenement house department, and also declaring what rights accrued thereunder to the landlord. The case presented no issue regarding those matters which it Was necessary to decide, and it was improper to include these conclusions of law in the decision, since they might embarrass the plaintiff in other litigation in which the question might be involved. . To insure that no such result ' will follow, the judgment will be modified by striking out the words " upon the merits," leaving the judgment a mere dismissal of the complaint, and as so modified it will be affirmed, with costs.
Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin and Clarke, JJ., concurred; Laughlin, J., dissented.