Case Name: Peter P. Cappel, Landlord-Respondent, v. Meyer London, Tenant-Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1909-01
Citations: 61 Misc. 652
Docket Number: 
Parties: Peter P. Cappel, Landlord-Respondent, v. Meyer London, Tenant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 61
Pages: 652–653

Head Matter:
Peter P. Cappel, Landlord-Respondent, v. Meyer London, Tenant-Appellant.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,
January, 1909.)
Summary proceedings — Sufficiency of affidavit or petition — Recitals as to relationship of landlord and tenant.
An allegation in a petition in summary proceedings for the recovery of the possession of real property, that the petitioner is the agent of the plaintiff who was the landlord and as suoh agent entered into an agreement with .the tenant and by the terms thereof the tenant hired from the landlord the premises in question, is a sufficient statement of the interest of the petitioner to comply with the requirements of section 2235 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Reargument of an appeal by the tenant from a final order in favor of the landlord, rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of New York, second district, borough of Manhattan.
Bernard H. Sandler, for appellant.
Isidor Cohn, for respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Upon the hearing of this appeal our attention was not called to the fact, that the petition herein, in addition to setting forth that the petitioner was the agent of the plaintiff, who was the " landlord " of the demised premises, also contained the further allegation " that the petitioner as the agent of such landlord on or about the first day of April entered into an agreement with Meyer London as tenant and that, by the terms of such agreement, the said tenant hired from the said landlord the premises," etc. This must be held to be a sufficient statement of the " interest " of the petitioner to comply with the requirements of section 2235 of the Code of Civil Procedure and thereby to confer jurisdiction upon the justice of the Municipal Court. Slater v. Waterson, 58 Misc. Rep. 215; 109 N. Y. Supp. 50; Royland v. Dillingham, 83 App. Div. 156. Our former order reversing the final' order herein most be vacated and said final order must be 'affirmed.
Present: Gildersleeve, MacLean and Seabury, JJ.
Final order affirmed, with costs.