
    Harral Mulliken, Respondent, v. Burr R. Brown, Appellant.
    
      Landlord, and tenant ■— dispossession of tenant — upon reversal of order of dispossession tenant may maintain action to recover damage arising from dispossession.
    
    
      Mulliken v. Brown, 206 App. Div. 719, affirmed.
    (Argued May 14, 1924;
    decided June 3, 1924.)
    Appeal, by permission, from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered June 1, 1923, unanimously affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict. The action was to recover for unlawful dispossession of a tenant. Plaintiff, having a lease of premises in the village of Rye, was dispossessed by order of the Westchester County Court in proceedings instituted by defendant. Thereafter the order of dispossession was reversed and the proceeding dismissed. This action was then brought to recover expenditures and damages arising from such dispossession. , „
    
      Theodore Kiendl and Frederic W. Girdner for appellant.
    
      Isaac N. Mills and Charles M. Sheafe, Jr., for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin, Crane, Andrews and Lehman, JJ.  