Hyperlawhypertext legal database Bartindale v. Adams 136 N.Y.S. 142

← Cases

Bartindale v. Adams

136 N.Y.S. 142 Court Argued June term, 1912, before SEABURY, LEHMAN, and BIJUR, JJ. Decision date 1912-06-21 English

Contents

Majority

p. 142
BARTINDALE v. ADAMS.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
June 21, 1912.)

Headnote

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Third District.
Action by Walter H. Bartindale against Cushing Adams. From a judgment for plaintiff, after a trial by the court without a jury, defendant appeals.
Reversed, and new trial ordered.
Argued June term, 1912, before SEABURY, LEHMAN, and BIJUR, JJ.
William S. Haskell, of New York City, for appellant.
Hastings & Gleason, of New York City (Wallace D. Scott, of New York City, of counsel), for respondent.

The plaintiff sues for rent of a furnished house leased for immediate occupancy for a term of five months. One of the defenses urged by the defendant is that the house was untenantable by reason of the presence of vermin. The learned trial justice in a careful opinion held that this defense was not made out, because there was no implied covenant that the demised premises are suitable or fit for occupation. This court has decided, in the case of Morgenthau v. Ehrich, 136 N. Y. Supp. 140 (this term), that under the circumstances shown in this case there is such an implied covenant

Judgment should therefore be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event