Case Name: DAVID STEVENSON BREWING CO. v. JUNCTION REALTY CO.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1913-04-18
Citations: 141 N.Y.S. 271
Docket Number: 
Parties: DAVID STEVENSON BREWING CO. v. JUNCTION REALTY CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 141
Pages: 271–275

Head Matter:
(156 App. Div. 271.)
DAVID STEVENSON BREWING CO. v. JUNCTION REALTY CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
April 18, 1913.)
1. Evidence (§ 441*)—Lease Under Seal—Modification by Parol.
A lease of real property under seal cannot be modified by a parol unexecuted agreement to reduce the rent.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Evidence, Cent. Dig. §§ 1719, 1723-1763, 1765-1845, 2030-2047; Dec. Dig. § 441.*]
2. Specific Performance (§ 64*)—Right to Relief—Adequate Remedy at
Law.
A lessee in a lease under seal was not entitled to maintain a suit fo> compel specific performance of a parol unexecuted agreement to reduce the rent; since, if a valid modification of the lease was made, complainant could raise the question and obtain relief in a Municipal Court action to recover the rent as authorized by Code Civ. Proc. § 2244.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Specific Performance, Cent. Dig. §§. 191-195, 198; Dec. Dig. § 64. ]
Laughlin, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Trial Term, New York County.
Action by the David Stevenson Brewing Company against the Junc tion Realty Company to compel specific performance of an agreement modifying a lease. From a judgment dismissing the complaint on the merits, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before INGRAHAM, P. J., and McLAUGHLIN, LAUGHLIN, CLARKE, and SCOTT, JJ.
Douglas Campbell, of New York City, for appellant.
Alfred B. Nathan, of New York City, for respondent.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes-

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, 24 N. E. 458, 8 L. R. A. 257, 17 Am. St. Rep. 638. 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, 116 N. Y. Supp. 726.
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 findings (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 "on the merits," leaving the judgment a mere dismissal of the complaint, and as so modified it will be affirmed, with costs.
INGRAHAM, P. J., and McLAUGHLIN and CLARKE, J'J., concur.