Court Opinion

ID: 3613828
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-05 23:57:26.290885+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:08:41.709952
License: Public Domain

The trial court found as facts that "Plaintiff refused to accept a surrender of the premises, and did not accept it, and the premises were at no time surrendered to the plaintiff. The letting of the premises was done with the assent of the defendant." The order of affirmance by the Appellate Division does not state that it was unanimous, but that is not important here, for the record contains evidence tending to support the findings. The evidence tends to show that the defendant intended by its conduct to threaten the plaintiff with the loss of his rent, and thus to coerce him to relet the premises, and then deny its *Page 399 
assent, notwithstanding after its receipt of the plaintiff's first letter, it told the plaintiff he could do as he liked with the premises. The defendant thus replied to the plaintiff's letter, at least so the trial court, in view of all the circumstances, might find, and did find.
PARKER, Ch. J., GRAY, O'BRIEN and HAIGHT, JJ., concur with WERNER, J., for reversal; LANDON, J., reads dissenting memorandum; CULLEN, J., not sitting.
Judgment reversed, etc.