
    BRILL v. NOEKETT.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    June 22, 1903.)
    1. Landlord and Tenant—Summary Proceedings—Evidence.
    Where, in a summary proceeding by a landlord against his tenant, the allegation of the petition that a certain amount of rent was due was denied by a verified answer, judgment for plaintiff, without any evidence that any rent was due, was erroneous.
    Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Second District. , ;,
    Summary proceedings by Max'Brill against’William S.. Norlcett to recover possession of certain premises belonging to plaintiff. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.
    Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and GILDERSLEEVE and MacLEAN, JJ.
    A. S. Gilbert, for appellant.
    William G. McCrea, for respondent.
   MacLEAN, J.

Upon a verified petition alleging three months’ rent due and owing, and demand therefor, and upon a verified answer denying each and every allegation in said petition contained, except “that on or about the 9th day of March, 1903, one Max Brill demanded of this tenant the sum of five hundred dollars,” the trial justice, without any evidence that the rent claimed in the petition or any rent was due, rendered judgment by final order in favor of the landlord, awarding him.possession of the premises for nonpayment of rent. The final order must • therefore be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event.

Final order reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.  