New York Supreme Court, 1941

Thiot Realty Corp. v. Rosen

Thiot Realty Corp. v. Rosen
New York Supreme Court · Decided March 28, 1941
176 Misc. 109; 27 N.Y.S.2d 803; 1941 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1804

Counsel

Bernard Trencher [Bertram Schleimer of counsel], for the appellant-, Harry Eisner, for the respondent.

Thiot Realty Corp. v. Rosen

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

Mere silence on the part of the landlord after receipt of a letter stating that tenant wished to remain as a monthly tenant was not sufficient to establish that a month-to-month tenancy agreement was created. Something more than mere silence is *110necessary. Defendant was a holdover tenant and as such is liable for the rent sued for.

. Judgment reversed, with thirty dollars costs, and judgment directed in favor of plaintiff as claimed in the summons.

All concur. Present — McCook, Hammer and McLaughlin, JJ.

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