Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges

IRVING HAIMOWITZ, Appellant, v. ALEXANDER LORINTZ et al., Doing Business as HOTEL PEERLESS CO., Respondents

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff made out a prima facie case for the return of the security deposit. No accord and satisfaction resulted from the retention by plaintiff of that part of his security which was returned to him. The money returned was him own (Real Property Law, § 233) and was conceded by the defendants to be due to plaintiff in any event ( Hudson v. Yonkers Fruit Co., 258 N.Y. 168; Eames Vacuum Brake Co., v. Prosser, 157 N.Y. 289).

The judgment should be unanimously reversed upon the law and facts and a new trial granted, with $30 costs to plaintiff to abide the event.

Concur — PETTE, HART and BROWN, JJ.

Judgment reversed, etc.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

HAIMOWITZ v. LORINTZ
(Jun 17, 1958)