SEABROOK V. COMMUTER HOUSING CO.
338 N.Y.S.2d 67 (1972)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Seabrook (P) filed an action against Commuter (D) for the return of a security deposit and one month's rent.
FACTS: P and D entered into a written lease agreement for an apartment in D's building. The lease and occupancy were to commence on March 1, 1972. The building was under construction. D's printed form lease contained a clause which provided that if the building was not completed on the date occupancy was to commence, occupancy would begin on the day the building was completed and the three-year period of the lease would commence with occupancy. On June 29 D notified P that the apartment would be ready for occupancy on July 1 four months after the lease was to commence. On May 12, P notified D that because of the delay in construction she was forced to vacate her premises and seek shelter elsewhere. P requested that the lease be canceled. D refused to cancel and refused to return the rent and security deposit. P sued D and testified that neither D nor his renting agent explained the construction clause to her before she executed the lease. She also testified that she was not represented by an attorney.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND
DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
