Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1910

New v. Liebeherr

New v. Liebeherr
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided February 18, 1910 · Seabury
121 N.Y.S. 236 (New York Supplement)

Counsel

Joseph H. McCarthy, for appellant.

New v. Liebeherr

Opinion of the Court

SEABURY, J.

The plaintiff sued to recover rent due under a lease-on iSeptember 1, 1909. The defendant pleaded eviction. The acts • which are alleged to have constituted an eviction occurred subsequent to the time when the rent sued for was due.

*237The rule is well settled that, to bar an action for rent, the eviction •must take place before the rent becomes due. Giles v. Comstock, 4 N. Y. 270, 53 Am. Dec. 374. In Giles v. Comstock, supra, the court •said:

“The doctrine everywhere running through the books is that, to render eviction from the premises a valid defense, it must have taken place before the rent became due.”

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. All concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.