lease contained clause in New York

1987The briefs of both parties are in agreement that the portion of the judgment pertaining to legal fees consists of two components: an award (1) in the sum of $3,528 in connection with a successful forcible entry and detainer action brought by respondent herself against Ian, the prior lessee whose self-help in evicting her from apartment 11A was rebuffed, but who ultimately prevailed against her in Ian v Wassberg (supra), and (2) in the sum of $10,362.50 for the legal fees incurred by her in the instant action.

1981There is no claim by plaintiff or anything in the record which would indicate that either she or the deceased tenant was uneducated, illiterate or that they did not understand that the lease contained a clause limiting the acceptance of a tendered surrender (see Blake v Biscardi, 62 AD2d 975 ).

1912In the case of Beach v. Nixon, 9 N. Y. 35 , a similar clause in a lease was construed; and the court held that, where the lease did not provide for the absolute termination of the lease by the happening of the breach but provided that it should cease and determine at the option of the landlord, the lease did not contain a conditional limitation, but merely gave the landlord a right to re-enter for condition broken which he could exercise at his option.

1908Having due regard to the modifications of tlieir rights effected by the granting of a license or permit, different from the one contemplated, and which in legal effect became null and void upon the institution of condemnation proceedings, I am of opinion that the case should be deemed controlled hj Matter of Mayor, etc., of New York ( 168 N. Y. 254 ), where the lease contained a clause to the effect that it should cease and terminate in case the premises should be destroyed or substantially changed by direction and authority of the department of docks or any other party having control of the w

1861Van Schaick v. Vincent, ( 4 Wend. 633 .) There the court is said to have held that “ a tenant for years forfeits his term by a refusal in pais to pay rent, by denying the title of his landlord, and by accepting title from a hostile source.” But it is apparent, from the reasoning in that case, that the lease contained a clause of forfeiture for non-payment of rent, although the terms of the instrument are not set forth by the reporter; and the only real question at issue there, ivas whether a parol disclaimer waived the necessity of a technical demand of the rent.