Case Name: ESWEIN v. HODGKINSON
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1908-01-24
Citations: 108 N.Y.S. 531
Docket Number: 
Parties: ESWEIN v. HODGKINSON.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 108
Pages: 531–534

Head Matter:
ESWEIN v. HODGKINSON.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
January 24, 1908.)
Witnesses—Evidence to Show Impbobability of Testimony.
Defendant, in an action for rent, claiming a release for the balance of the term of a year from September 1st, having testified that, before he moved out in April, he told plaintiff, when asking him for a release, that this was the renting season, that the 1st of May would be the time when the tenants took the new property, and that plaintiff replied that he did not think there would be any trouble in renting the place then, plaintiff, to show the improbability of such testimony, may show that October, and not May, was the renting time for steam-heated flats, such as the premises in question.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 50, Witnesses, § 1277-1
Hooker, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Brooklyn, Third District.
Action by George Eswein against Edgar R. Hodgkinson. From an order granting plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before WOODWARD, JENKS, HOOKER, MILLER, and GAYNOR, JJ.
Bruce R. Duncan, for appellant.
A. S. Gilbert, for respondent.

Opinion:
GAYNOR, J.
This is an action for rent of a family apartment. The lease was in writing, and the term was one year from September 1, 1906, the rent payable monthly in advance. The defendant moved out the end of the following April, and this action is to recover the rent thereafter. The defendant answered that the plaintiff released him from the lease before he moved out, and thus had the affirmative on the trial. The jury gave a verdict for the defendant, but the trial justice granted the motion on the minutes to set aside the verdict, and the defendant appeals from that order. The testimony of the defendant that he asked that he might move out in April and pay-no rent thereafter is denied. The defendant testified that he told the plaintiff when he asked the latter to release him, "that this was the renting season, that the first of May would be the time when the tenants took the new property," and that the plaintiff in answer "said he did not think there would be any trouble in renting the place there now." This the plaintiff denied. To show its improbability the plaintiff sought to prove that that kind of property, namely, steam-heated apartments of a fine class, were not rented on May 1st but- on October 1st, but the evidence was excludéd. Although the motion to set aside the verdict was made on all the grounds allowed by the Code of Civil Procedure, the trial justice granted it on the ground-that the exclusion of this evidence was error. In this he was right. October 1st being the moving and renting day for that kind of property, it is improbable that the plaintiff admitted that May- 1st was the day, or accepted that as a moving cause for his consent to release the defendant on payment of the April rent. The people who occupy such apartments go away for the summer- vacation as a rule, and therefore do' not enter into leases on May 1st, which, it is said, led to the general change of the renting day of such property from May 1st to October 1st years ago. A fact which bears on the improbability of evidence is competent. Willson v. Law, 112 N. Y. 536, 20 N. E. 399.
As the order must be affirmed for this reason, it is not necessary to consider whether there was any consideration for the alleged release.
The order should be affirmed.
Order of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs. All concur, except HOOKER, J., who dissents.