Case Name: Annie C. Hoff, Appellant, v. Royal Metal Furniture Company, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1907-03-22
Citations: 117 A.D. 884
Docket Number: 
Parties: Annie C. Hoff, Appellant, v. Royal Metal Furniture Company, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 117
Pages: 884–887

Head Matter:
Annie C. Hoff, Appellant, v. Royal Metal Furniture Company, Respondent.
Second Department,
March 22, 1907.
Landlord and tenant — covenant for perpetual renewal. •
A definite covenant for the perpetual yearly renewal of a lease is not void.
Thus where the tenant, its successors and assigns have the privilege of renewing the lease from year to year upon notice in writing, the covenant is not indefinite,'and when the landlord refuses to, renew the lease and seeks to dispossess the tenant his petition in summary proceedings should be dismissed.
Hookeb, J., dissented, with opinion.
Appeal by the plaintiff, Annie C- Hoff, from a final order of the Municipal Court of the city of Kew York, borough of Brooklyn, rendered on the 7th day of May, 1906,, dismissing the petition upon the merits, in a summary proceeding brought by a landlord to ■ remove a tenant. "
The lease was in writing and was made on May 1, 190,3. .It was for a term of one year from said May 1 at a yearly rent of $600 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 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. 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 incumbrances.”
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 rénew 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.
Charles A. Decker, for the appellant.
Thaddeus D. Kenneson, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Gaynor, J.:
The covenant for renewals 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 Co., 7 N. Y. 172; Western New York & Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Rea, 83 App. Div. 576). 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. 120).
The case of Western Transportation Co. v. Lansing (49 N. Y. 499) is not in point.- There the covenant was held to be nonenforcible 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. R. Co., 151 N. Y. 493).
The final order should be affirmed.
Jenks and Miller, JJ., concurred; Hooker, J., read for reversal.