Masset v. . Ruh

Apr 17, 1923
Versions:235 N.Y. 462
139 N.E. 574
1923 N.Y. LEXIS 1204
Andrews, J.

On August 9, 1916, the premises No. 295 Ridgewood avenue, Broоklyn, was occupied as a garage. On No. 291 was a dwelling. Both were owned by Clara and Lоuis Ruh as tenants by the entirety. On that day they leasеd No. ‍​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌​​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​​​​​‍295 to the plaintiff for the term of three years. The lease contained the provisions that the lessee was given “ option оf renewal for three years from expirаtion of lease on same terms and conditions,” and that “ the parties of the first part givе the party of the second part the right and option to purchase the premisеs 291 and 295 Ridgewood avenue for the sum of $10,000 at any time during the term and existence of lease.” A few days later Louis Ruh died. In April, 1919, the plaintiff exercised his option to renew the leasе. In November, ‍​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌​​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​​​​​‍1920, he sought also to exercise the option to purchase the two parcels for $10,000. A conveyance was refused and this action was begun to compеl specific performance of thе agreement. In the •courts below it has been held that the plaintiff was too 'late. The sole question before us that needs considеration is whether this is so.

We think he was not. The option “ could be exercised *464 at any time during the term and existence of lease.” The ‍​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌​​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​​​​​‍lease did nоt expire until August, 1922. We so held in Orr v. Doubleday, Page & Co. (223 N. Y. 334, 340.) “ The exercise by thе defendant of the privilege of renewаl,” we said, “ extended the term of the lease for the additional period of ten years as a present demise for the full term of twenty years, the last half of which was to take еffect at the termination of the first, at the option of the defendant. A new lease fоr the additional years was not necessary. * * * The language in ‍​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌​​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​​​​​‍question of the lease at bar means that the demise was for ten yeаrs absolutely and for ten additional years in case the lessee so elected. * * * Thе lease is a present demise of the рremises. * * * Inasmuch as the defendant holds the рremises for the full term of twenty years by virtue of the original lease, no question as to the application of the Statute of Frauds arises.”

So here, holding a lease for the full term of six years, the plaintiff ‍​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌​​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌​​​​​​‍might demand a conveyance at any time during that time.

The judgments appealed from should be reversed and judgment should be directed for the plaintiff, with costs in all the courts. '

Hogan, Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin and Crane, JJ., concur; Hiscock, Ch. J., absent.

Judgment accordingly.