111 N.Y.S. 651 | N.Y. App. Term. | 1908
In this proceeding to recover possession of Nos. 142—146 East Twenty-seventh street, the answer began: “ The tenant above named, answering the petition of Edward W. Browning, the landlord, on information and belief, avers:
“ I. He denies the allegations contained in the petition of the landlord in which he states that on the first day of March, 1908, there was due to the landlord from said tenant under and by virtue of a written agreement, the sum two thousand dollars for one month’s rent of said premises, to wit, from March 1st, 1908, to April 1st, 1908.
“ II. He denies the statements contained in the petition of said landlord that the said rent has been demanded in writing from the tenant by service of a three days’ written demand.”
As a separate and distinct defense, the tenant, on information and belief, averred that the court had no jurisdiction in the premises. He also, similarly, on information and belief, averred misrepresentations to himself as basis for a counterclaim, which did not come up for consideration, as nothing was offered to support it.
Just what was meant by the plea of no jurisdiction is
Under II comes a negative pregnant, the bald denial of the statement in the form made, that the rent had been demanded in writing from himself, but not of the substantial allegation of compliance with the requirement of “ at least three days’ notice in writing.” He does not deny the fact of a demand for payment made at least three days. Por all that appears, he might have seen with his own eyes
Judgment and final order appealed from affirmed, with costs.
Gildersleeve, J., concurs; Seabury, J., concurs in result.
Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.