
    Joseph S. Marcus, Appellant, v. The Collins Building and Construction Co., Respondent.
    Appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendant, rendered in the Municipal.Court of the City of Few York, borough.of Mam hattan, for the fifth district.
    J. L. Weinberg, for-appellant.'
    J. H. K, Blauvelt, for respondent.
   Leventritt, J.

The only question involved in this appeal is whether -a certain paper is a lease or a mere agreement for a lease. As the paper contains all' the terms and conditions necessary to a valid binding contract between the parties, the unfulfilled transcription of the same terms and conditions into a more formal document' does not impair the validity of the original contract. Therefore, what was paid under it was rent. The fact that the. amount was exactly one month’s installment arid that the plaintiff accepted a receipt as for rent, weigh heavily against his - attempt to regain the money on the ground that it was a deposit.

The recovery of the money paid was, therefore, properly denied • him. The judgment should be affirmed.

Fbeedmae, P. J., and MaoLeae, J., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs to the respondent.  