¶1(concurring). I concur in the result reached by Mr. Justice Lehman, but I believe that the provision was one for a penalty because since there was no' covenant to pay which survived summary proceedings, I think that the contingency provided against was one in which no damages could accrue. See Caesar V. Rubinson, 174 N. Y. 492; Feyer v. Reiss, 154 App. Div. 272.
94 Misc. 243
Steiger v. Feldman
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
Decided March 15, 1916
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · decided 1916-03-15
Appeal by the defendants from an order of the Municipal Court, borough of Manhattan, second district, denying defendants ’. motion to set aside the judgment and for a new trial.
Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently October 1957
2 state decisions
Relies on Caesar v. . Rubinson
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1916-03-15
View the full empirical analysis of this case →