Dixon v. Silberblatt — 86 N.Y.S. 262

Majority

p. 262

DIXON et al. v. SILBERBLATT.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

January 25, 1904.)

Headnote

L Landlord .and Tenant—Action for Rent—Evidence.

Where, in an action for rent for March, 1903, the landlord’s agent testified that defendant’s tenancy extended from May 1, 1902, to May 1, 1903, and that defendant occupied the premises during part of March, 1903, while defendant and his wife testified that the hiring was from month to month, and that they moved out in February, 1903, a judgment in favor of plaintiff was justified.

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Fifth District.

Action by William P. Dixon and another against Solomon Silberblatt. From a Municipal Court judgment in favor of plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and MacLEAN and DAVIS, JJ-

Max Silverstein, for appellant.

Joseph Wilkenfield, for respondents.

In this action for the rental of certain premises foi the month of March, 1903, the agent of the plaintiff testified that the defendant’s tenancy was for the year May 1, 1902, to May 1, 1903, and that he was in occupation during part of March; the defendant and his wife testified that the hiring was from month to month, and that they moved out in February; thus presenting a question of fact which the learned justice has resolved in favor of the plaintiffs, and in whose favor the evidence predominated.

Judgment affirmed,, with costs to the respondents. All concur.