Waitt Operating Co. v. Content

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court entered in the New York county clerk’s office on February 18, 1931.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Present— Finch, P. J., McAvoy, Martin, O’Malley and Townley, JJ.; Finch, P. J., dissents.

(dissenting). I dissent and vote to reverse order granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. In addition to the question of fact as to the sufficiency of the elevator service, which was a necessary means of access to the leased premises, the acceleration clause provides not for liquidated damages, but for a penalty. (Seidlitz v. Auerbach, 230 N. Y. 167.)