Legal Opinion

Freehold Investments v. Richstone

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Decided January 23, 1973PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Per curiam

The lease, projected into the statutory tenancy, expressly prohibits any alterations without the consent of the landlord and specifies that even papering the walls or changing the color of the wall paint is a prohibited alteration and a breach of a substantial obligation of the lease. Clearly, under the terms of the lease, the tenant was not at liberty to make the substantial alterations he undertook, without consulting the landlord. No matter how much the plight in which the tenant now finds himself may appeal to sympathy, we cannot undertake to rewrite the agreement of the parties (First…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Agate v. . LowenbeinNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
  2. McDonald v. O'HaraNew York Supreme Court · 1921
  3. Petrelli v. KagelCivil Court of the City of New York · 1962

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Rumiche Corp. v. EisenreichNew York Court of Appeals · 1976
  2. Harar Realty Corp. v. Michlin & Hill, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1982
  3. Haberman v. HawkinsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991
  4. Britton v. YaziciogluAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993
  5. Freehold Investments v. RichstoneAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1973

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API