Bennett v. Budweiser Brewing Co. — 58 N.Y.S. 313

Majority

p. 313

BENNETT v. BUDWEISER BREWING CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

April 27, 1899.)

Headnote

Landlord and Tenant—Summary Proceedings—Authority op Agent.

Under Code Civ. Proc. § 2235, authorizing a petition in summary proceedings by the agent of the landlord, and requiring it to state the facts authorizing the application by the petitioner, a statement that the petitioner is agent of the landlord (naming him), and is authorized to commence the proceedings, is sufficient.

Appeal from municipal court, borough of Manhattan, Fourth district.

Action by Pauline Bennett against the Budweiser Brewing Company. There was a judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.

Beversed.

Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and MacLEAN and LEVEN-TBITT, JJ. ,

Abraham H. Sarasohn, for appellant.

This order must be reversed. Upon the return of the precept the tenant moved to dismiss the proceedings on the ground that the petition failed to disclose that the petitioner, the agent of the landlord, was duly authorized to institute the proceedings: The justice, in granting the motion, overlooked the statements of the petition wherein the petitioner averred “that your petitioner is the agent for Pauline Bennett, who is the owner and landlord,” and “that your petitioner is duly authorized to commence proceedings to dispossess said tenant,and those claiming possession under said tenant.” All the allegations required by section 2235 of the Code of Civil Procedure are contained in the petition, and hence the motion to dismiss should have been denied.

Order reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant • to abide the event. All concur.