
    Steinhardt v. Buel.
    
      (City Court of New York, General Term.
    
    October 15, 1891.)
    Landlord and Tenant—Renewal of Lease—Question for Jury.
    In an action to recover the possession oí demised premises, wherein the principal controversy was as to whether certain acts of the parties amounted to a renewal of the .ease on modified terms, the court erred in withdrawing that question from the jury, and instructing them to find for plaintiff.
    Appeal from trial term.
    Action jy Selig Steinhardt, plaintiff, against Oliver P. Buel, defendant, to recover the possession of a flat. The principal controversy in the case was whether an agreement had been made between the parties for the renewal of the lease after the expiration thereof. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
    Argued before Ehrlich, C. J., and Van Wyck, J.
    
      Grove M. Harwood, for appellant. Jacob Steinhardt, for respondent.
   Ehrlich, C. J.

The question whether there was a rehiring by the defendant was in conflict, and should have been sent to the jury for their determination. There is room for doubt whether the terms, conditions, and details of the rehiring were settled by the parties, so as to give the result the effect of a lease. The defendant had refused to renew on the old terms, and negotiations were opened looking forward to an entirely new agreement, and whether it was consummated was a question which could not be withheld from the jury. The court directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, to which the defendant excepted. This error requires that the judgment be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant, to abide the event.  