Majority
Headnote
1. Summary proceedings — Variance.In the order before us we have an instance of the “ injustice and oppression ” which Judge Bronson apprehended from summary proceedings unless they be “carefully watched.” Hill v. Stocking, 6 Hill, 314 , 318.
The petition alleges a verbal letting on or about the 1st November, 1892, “ for the term of one month.” The proof was of an oral lease, in April, “ from month to month, as long as he would pay the rent.” The evidence failed to sustain the petition. Romeyn v. Sickles, 108 N. Y., 650 , 652; 13 St. Rep., 864 .
Waiving the discrepancy betweemthe pleading and proof, still it appeals the petitioner miscarried iri making a case for an order of dispossession.
As to the notice requisite in summary proceedings, the distinction is between tenancies for a month and tenancies from month to month; in the former no notice being necessary, while in the latter the formal notice is indispensable. Wilson v. Taylor, 8 Daly, 256 ; Geiger v. Braun, 6 id., 506; Anderson v. Prindle, 23 Wend., 616 .
Assuming, as held in some cases, Ludington v. Garlock, 29 St. Rep., 600 , and citations, that notice be not requisite in' simple tenancies from month to month, here was something more.
The order reversed, with costs, and restitution directed.
Bischoff, J., concurs.