Hyperlawhypertext legal database Schlesinger v. Perper 126 N.Y.S. 731

← Cases

Schlesinger v. Perper

126 N.Y.S. 731 Court N.Y. App. Term Decision date 1911-01-05 English

Delivered by GIEGERICH, J.

Contents

Majority

p. 731
SCHLESINGER v. PERPER.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
January 5, 1911.)

Headnote

1. Landlord and Tenant (§ 208*)—Rent—Liability of Assignee of Lease.
The assignee of a lease who has gone into possession of the premises thereunder is liable to the landlord for rent.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Landlord and Tenant, Cent. Dig. §§ 821-831; Dec. Dig. § 208.*]
:2. Judgment (§ 629*)—Bar of Causes of Action—Persons Who May Take Advantage of Bar.
A lessor who prosecutes an action against his lessee for rent to judgment Is not precluded from suing the assignee of the lease for rent for the same period while the judgment remains unsatisfied.
[Ed. Note.—Eor other cases, see Judgment, Cent. Dig. § 1145; Dec. Dig. § 629.*]
Appeal from Municipal Court, -Borough of Manhattan, Second District.
Action by Frederick Schlesinger against Sarah Perper. From a judgment for plaintiff, after trial by the court without a jury, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before GIEGERICH, BRADY, and GAVEGAN, JJ.
Morris S. Schector (Louis Salant, of counsel), for appellant.
Herman Gottlieb, for respondent.

I think the plaintiff sufficiently proved the as- • •signment of the lease to the defendant and her occupation of the premises thereunder. By such assignment and occupation the defendant became liable to the plaintiff for rent for the period of her occupation (Sayles v. Kerr, 4 App. Div. 150 , 38 N. Y. Supp. 880 ; Dassori v. Zarek, 71 App. Div. 538 , 75 App. Div. 841 ), and the only question in the case is whether the plaintiff, by prosecuting an action against his lessee to judgment, has precluded himself from the right to sue the assignee for rent for the same period for which he had previously recovered judgment against his lessee. The contrary appears to have been held as to the commencement of an action merely in People v. German Bank, In re Bettinger, 126 App. Div. 231 , 110 N. Y. Supp. 291 , and there seems to be no reason for a different rule where the action was prosecuted to judgment so long as the judgment remained unsatisfied, which is the situation here.

The judgment should therefore be affirmed, with costs.

BRADY, J., concurs. GAVEGAN, J., concurs in the result.