(Download) "Jojule Realty Corporation v. Bonded Frozen Food Corp." by Supreme Court of New York # eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Jojule Realty Corporation v. Bonded Frozen Food Corp.
- Author : Supreme Court of New York
- Release Date : January 18, 1956
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 69 KB
Description
[2 A.D.2d 698 Page 698] The respondent caused a metal pipe to be installed vertically on the front exterior wall of the one-story building of which
the demised premises are a part, as a conduit for four new electrical wires which it also caused to be installed to serve
its premises. The pipe extends a distance above the roof of the building through a hole which the respondent caused to be
cut for that purpose in a structural projection which runs along the front edge of the roof. It runs into the base of the
building, a few inches above the sidewalk. The four new wires replaced a single wire which had previously served the building.
In addition, respondent caused to be erected a vertical wooden post alongside the portion of the pipe extending above the
roof, as an incident to this electrical work. The undisputed evidence is that the post is "loose". These alterations were
clearly violative of the unambiguous provisions of articles 3, 6 and 12 of the lease under which the respondent is in possession.
Parol evidence to the effect that officers of the appellant had told an officer of the respondent that the latter could install
"three-phase lighting" should not have been admitted over objection or accepted as a variance of the terms of the written
lease, despite the fact that there was no objection to the testimony elicited from an officer of the appellant, which testimony
corroborated said parol evidence. The original objection to the evidence was sufficient to call the attention of the trial
court to the fact that the written lease integrated the contract between the parties (see Higgs v. de Maziroff, 263 N. Y.
473). In view of respondent's failure to remedy the said breach of the stated covenants of the lease within the five-day period
specified in the notice which appellant gave to respondent pursuant to article 17 of the lease, and the ensuing three-day
notice of cancellation of the lease which the appellant gave, also pursuant to article 17, the term of the [2 A.D.2d 698
Page 699]