TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

502 Park Avenue Corp. v. Delmonico Hotel, Inc.

502 Park Avenue Corporation v. Delmonico Hotel, Inc.

502 Park Ave. Corp. v. Delmonico Hotel, Inc., 132 Misc. 686 (1928)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
New York City Court · State Trial Courts
Decided
July 17, 1928
Judges
Genung
Citations
132 Misc. 686230 N.Y.S. 2621928 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 964

Opinion of the Court — Genung

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Genung, J.

(On rehearing). The landlord argues that the court,

in applying the doctrine that, where a greater estate and a lesser meet and coincide in the same person and the same right, the lesser estate is merged, has failed to give effect to the intention of the parties as expressed in the lease and the option agreement. (Bostwick v. Frankfield, 74 N. Y. 207 .) In that case a lease was made with the tenant for a term of years and later a contract of sale of the property to the tenant was executed, but title was not passed and a deed was not delivered at the time fixed by the contract, and subsequently the tenant made payment on account of rent, thus showing an intention of the parties to continue the lease. It is to be noted, also, that the contract of sale in that case provided that unless it was carried out by the defendant by a certain date the same and everything therein contained should be null and void and of no further effect. That is clearly a different situation from the present case. The other cases cited (Stewart v. Long Island R. R. Co., 102 N. Y. 601 ; Sweet v. Henry, 175 id. 268; Williams v. Haddock, 145 id. 144; New York Building Loan Banking Co. v. Keeney, 56 App. Div. 538 ; Campbell v. Babcock, 26 Abb. N. C. 35 ; 13 N. Y. Supp. 843 ) can all be distinguished from the instant case and, while they discuss the doctrine of merger and the question of the intention of the parties, they do not convince the court of any error in the former ruling.

On rehearing, the application to vacate the final order in favor of the tenant, and for a new trial, is denied.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1952: 11961: 119522026peak 1952 · 1

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 4

DepthCaseCited by
Campbell v. Babcock, 13 N.Y.S. 843 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1890) 2
Stewart v. Long Island R.R. Co., 8 N.E. 200 (N.Y. 1886) 104
Bostwick v. Frankfield, 74 N.Y. 207 (1878) 24
N.Y. Bldg. Loan Banking Co. v. Keeney, 56 A.D. 538 (1900) 1

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list