
    LOUGHRAN et al. v. KENYON.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    October 4, 1900.)
    Appeal—Review—Conflicting Evidence.
    Where the evidence was conflicting, the finding of the trial court will not be disturbed.
    Appeal from municipal court, borough of Manhattan.
    Action by Alice Loughran and others against Thomas A. Kenyon. From a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Argued before BEEKMAN, P. J., and GIEGERIOH and O’GORMAN, JJ.
    John J. Quencer, for appellant.
    Daniel Daly, for respondents.
   PEB CURIAM.

The defendant became a tenant of the premises in question under a written lease, which expired oh October 1, 1898, and was extended for one year from the last-mentioned date. The defendant continued in possession after the 1st day of October, 1899, claiming the right to do so under an agreement alleged by him to have been made with the plaintiffs during the month of September, 1899, to the effect that he was to continue in possession as a monthly tenant until certain repairs were made in a manner satisfactory-to him. The defendant also set up and sought to establish upon the trial a surrender of the premises prior to the 1st day of November, 1899. The facts with relation to both of these defenses are conflicting. The justice resolved the conflict in favor of the plaintiffs; and, after carefully reading the record, we are unable to discover any ground which would justify us in disturbing the conclusion reached by him. The proof shows that the defendant’s undertenant did not remove from the premises until after November 1, 1899. It is claimed that this was in accordance with the plaintiffs’ consent, but the latter deny having given the same.

There being no other ground of asserted error apparent in the record, the judgment is affirmed, with costs.  