
    Edward Weston, Resp’t, v. Rupert A. Ryley, App’lt.
    
      (New York City Court, General Term,
    
    
      Filed February 7, 1896.)
    
    1. Pleading—Lease.
    In an action on an express covenant to pay rent, the landlord in his complaint need not allege or prove that the tenant occupied or enjoyed the premises.
    2. Same—Affirmative defense.
    Where the tenant sets up an affirmative defense in such action, which did not arise until the middle of the first month in dispute, and the rent for that month was due and payable in advance, the landlord is entitled to have a verdict directed for that month.
    S. Same—Direction , of verdict.
    Where the defendant in such action takes a general exception only to a motion for judgment for the rent of two months, he fails to raise the specific question of defense to the second month’s rent.
    
      Appeal from a judgment on a verdict directed for plaintiff.
    John J. Adams, for app’lt; Wm. H. Sweney, for resp’t.
   SCHUCHMAM, J.

—This is an appeal from a judgment directed upon the pleadings in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The action is brought by the plaintiff to recover from the defendant rent of a flat, in the premises kqown as No. 23 West Twentieth street, in the city of New York, for the months of August and September, 1895, covenanted to be paid by de-° fendant, in a written lease, for the term of two years from November 1, 1894. The action is brought on express covenant to pay rent. In such an action, plaintiff in his complaint need not allege or prove that the defendant occupied or enjoyed the premises. Gilhooley v. Washington, 4 N. Y. 217. For that reason, the denial in the" first paragraph of defendant’s answer does not avail him. It appears, therefore, that the plaintiff’s cause of action, as set up in his complaint, is fully admitted by the answer. Defendant must therefore rely upon the affirmative defense set-up in the third paragraph of his answer, to wit, surrender and acceptance. This defense, as pleaded, did not arise until August 12, 1895, while the rent for the month of August was payable on August 1st, in advance, so that plaintiff was clearly entitled to a direction for one month’s rent. To the motion for judgment on the answer, which was granted, defendant took a -general exception, thereby disputing that plaintiff was entitled to any judgment at all, when he was clearly entitled to judgment for one month’s rent, and wholly failed to raise the specific question of defense to the rent for the month of September. Defendant omitting to call the attention of the court to the question of the liability for the rent forth e month of September upon the trial, it is too late fly raise it on appeal. Tuers v. Tuers, 100 N. Y. 196.

Judgment is therefore affirmed, with costs.

All concur.  