
    Sarah Lynch, Resp’t, v. George W. Lauer, App’lt.
    
      (New York City Court, General Term,
    
    
      Filed October 29, 1895.)
    
    1. Evidence—Parol.
    All prior agreements between the parties to a lease, concerning improve ments to be made upon the demised premises, are emerged in the lease and not admissible in an action for rent. .
    3. Landlord and tenant—Duress.
    A mere threat to evict is not duress within the contemplation of the law.
    3. Same—Waiver.
    Where the lessee remains in possession of the premises and pays rent to the lessor for three years after the alleged fraud and duress were perpetrated, it is too late for him to take advantage of such alleged wrongs.
    4, Same—Rents.
    The service of papers on the lessee in dispossessory proceedings by a person other than the lessor, claiming title to the premises, does not relieve the lessee from liability for rent.
    Appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff.
    
      Metzgar & Tabor, for app’lt; Anderson, Howland & Murray, for resp’t.
   Fitzsimons, J.

All agreements made between the parties hereto concerning improvements to be made upon the demised premises were merged in the lease as signed. Wilson v. Deen, 74 N. Y. 531. Therefore the proposed testimony tending to show such agreement was properly excluded by the trial judge. A mere-threat to evict is not duress, within the.contemplation of the law, and the objection to the question at folio 76 was properly sustained. Besides, it appears that the defendant remained in possession of the premises, and paid rent therefor to plaintiff, for three years after the alleged fraud and duress were perpetrated. In our judgment, it was then too late for the defendant to take advantage of such alleged wrongs. It was not the duty of the landlord to-keep the premises in repair, particularly in this instance, because the lease expressly imposed upon the tenant that obligation. The fact that the defendant was served with papers in a dispossessory proceeding by some person claiming title to the premises in question did not relieve him from payment of rent, for it in no way established that a superior title was in some person other than plaintiff, nor did it authorize defendant to question the title of his. landlord. As to the alleged surrender and acceptance of the lease, that question was fairly submitted, on sufficient testimony, to the jury, and decided against the defendant. Finding no error, the-judgment must be affirmed, with costs.  