Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

123 Misc. 469

Sarner v. Kantor

New York Supreme Court

Decided June 30, 1924

New York Supreme Court · decided 1924-06-30

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1924-06-30

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently October 1967

7 state decisions

4019241930194019501960decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Proskauer, J.

¶1Defendant lessor moves to dismiss the lessee’s complaint for insufficiency in law. The lease provided: “Fourth. That the tenant shall not assign or sublet this agreement, or under-let or underlease the premises without the landlord’s written consent first had and obtained . Nothing herein contained shall permit the landlord to unreasonably withhold his consent to any sublease.” Plaintiff alleges unreasonable refusal to consent to a sublease and demands damages and the return of the deposit under the lease.

¶2Plaintiff cannot recover unless this 4th clause is a covenant by defendant not unreasonably to withhold his consent to a sublease. The purpose of the provision is to protect the lessee against liability for damages or risk of forfeiture if consent of the lessor is improperly withheld. 1 Tiffany Landl. & Ten. § 152, p. 933; 2 Underhill Landl, & Ten. § 632, p. 1063. Nowhere does the lessor expressly covenant not to withhold his consent unreasonably. The only covenant is by plaintiff not to sublet, and it is plaintiff’s own covenant that is qualified by the condition that the lessor shall not unreasonably withhold his consent. The cases of Sear v. House Prop. & Inn. Soc., L. R. (1880-81) 16 Ch. Div. 387, and Treloar v. Bigge, L. R. (1873-74) 9 Exch. 151, are controlling.

¶3Plaintiff urges that this construction imposes upon the lessee the risk of forfeiture if he subleased and points out the practical difficulty of finding a sublessee under such circumstances. Young v. Ashley Cardens Properties, Ltd., L. R. (1903) 2 Ch. Div. 112, shows the remedy. There plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment that defendant had no right to withhold consent. Cozens-Hardy, L. J., writes: I cannot imagine a more judicious or beneficial exercise of the jurisdiction to make a declaratory order than that which has been adopted in this case.” Under section 473 of the Civil Practice Act, plaintiff may, if the facts warrant, secure a similar declaration in the instant case.

¶4Judgment for defendant.

¶5Ordered accordingly; judgment accordingly.

/123/misc/469 · .json · Public domain