
    (45 Misc. Rep. 603)
    LANDESMAN v. HAUSER.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    December 7, 1904.)
    1. Leases and Covenants—Reletting—ENEOKCEirENT.
    A covenant in a lease authorizing the landlord to “resume possession” and relet for the tenant’s, .account, and not containing the technical term “re-enter,” is enforceable, notwithstanding the termination of the lease by summary proceedings.
    
      2. Pleadings—General Denial—Sufficiency.
    An answer containing certain specific admissions, and then denying each and every other allegation of the complaint, “not hereinbefore specifically admitted, controverted, or denied,” is a good general denial.
    Appeal from City Court of New York, Trial Term.
    Action by William Landesman against Bella Hauser. From a judgment for plaintiff, and from an order denying a new trial, defendant appeals.
    Reversed.
    Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J„, and BISCHOFF and GILDER-SLEEVE, JJ.
    Lynn W. Thompson, for appellant.
    Ignace I, Apfel, for respondent.
   BISCHOFF, J.

The court below also erred in the construction of the pleadings leading to the ruling that the plaintiff’s case was established without proof. The answer contained certain specific admissions, and then proceeded tó deny each and every other allegation of the complaint “not hereinbefore specifically admitted, controverted, or denied.” This sufficed as a general denial. Griffin v. L. I. R. Co., 101 N. Y. 348, 4 N. E. 740; There was no ambiguity in what was covered by the denial, depending upon the discovery of -allegations “not qualified,” as in Clark v. Dillon, 97 N. Y. 370, and the latter case is to be distinguished from the case at bar precisely as it was distinguished in the Griffin Case.

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