Warning

Info

Table of Contents
UnreasonableWoman, SLS '24 |

0 0

Back to briefs

Joseph Martin, Jr., Delicatessen v. Schumacher

(1981)

New York Court of Appeals - 52 N.Y.2d 105

tl;dr:

Landlord and tenant agreed that the tenant could renew their lease, but stated that the rental terms were "to be agreed upon." When the tenant tried to renew their lease, the landlord asked for rent way above what an appraiser thought it should be.

Video Summary


Case Summary

In Joseph Martin, Jr., Delicatessen v. Schumacher (1981), Joseph Martin Jr. ("JMJ") was a tenant in Schumacher’s building. They had earlier set an agreement in the lease agreement that JMJ could renew their lease, subject to negotiation of rent. However, during the renewal process Schumacher charged way above the market value. JMJ then sued for specific performance of the original rental agreement’s rental fee.

JMJ asked the trial court to compel Schumacher to extend the lease for the additional term at the appraiser’s figure or another sum that the court thought was reasonable. The trial court granted Schumacher’s motion for summary judgment, holding that a bald "agreement to agree" on a future rental was unenforceable for uncertainty as a matter of law. The Appellate Division overruled. JMJ appealed.

ICRAIssue, Conclusion, Rule, Analysis for Joseph Martin, Jr., Delicatessen v. Schumacher

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Joseph Martin, Jr., Delicatessen v. Schumacher case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Facts & HoldingJoseph Martin, Jr., Delicatessen v. Schumacher case brief facts & holding

Facts:Joseph Martin Jr. ("JMJ") was a tenant in Schumacher’s building....

Holding:The Court held that a rental agreement with a renewal...

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Joseph Martin, Jr., Delicatessen v. Schumacher case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition

Font size -+
Joseph Martin, Jr., Delicatessen v. Schumacher | Case Brief DeepDive
Majority opinion, author: Fuchsberg, J.
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

This case involves a dispute over a realty lease provision that states the rent for a renewal period is "to be agreed upon." The Supreme Court dismissed the tenant's complaint, holding that an agreement to agree on a future rental was unenforceable for uncertainty as a matter of law. The Appellate Division overturned the previous ruling and reinstated the tenant's complaint, allowing for consolidation of the case. The court held that a renewal clause in a lease that provides for future agreement on rent is enforceable if it is established that the parties did not intend to terminate the lease in the event of a failure to agree. The court further stated that if the tenant meets this burden, the trial court can proceed to set a reasonable rent. The certified question was whether the Appellate Division's order was properly made, and the court concluded that the Supreme Court's decision was correct. An agreement to agree that leaves a material term for future negotiation is unenforceable, particularly for the sale or lease of real property. The requirement for definiteness can be met through substance rather than form, such as a methodology for determining the rent within the lease or an objective extrinsic event, condition, or standard on which the amount depends.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Joseph Martin, Jr., Delicatessen v. Schumacher case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Opinion (Concurrence), author: Meyer, J.
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

The concurring judge agrees with the outcome of the case but disagrees with the majority's rejection of a previous case, May Metropolitan Corp. v May Oil Burner Corp., as inapplicable to lease litigation. The judge argues that the fact that the previous case was commercial and its principle is now incorporated in a statute that is not applicable to real estate is irrelevant. The judge cites Farrell Lines v City of New York to support the idea that lease agreements are not different from ordinary contracts. The judge also disagrees with the majority's opinion that no course of dealing between parties to a lease could make a clause providing for renewal at a rental "to be agreed upon" enforceable.

Dissenting opinion, author: Jasen, J.
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

Judge Jasen disagrees with the majority opinion that a lease provision for renewal must be certain to be enforceable. He believes that even if the provision calls for renewal at "rentals to be agreed upon," the court should intervene to set a reasonable rent to prevent forfeiture, as long as the tenant can prove their entitlement to renewal. The Appellate Division's order is upheld based on Justice Leon D. Lazer's reasoning. The defendant's appeal is overturned and the Supreme Court's orders in Suffolk County are reinstated. The answer to the certified question is no. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed without costs.

🤯 High points 🤯Key points contributed by students on LSD

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Joseph Martin, Jr., Delicatessen v. Schumacher case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

LSD+ Case Briefs

Features

  • DeepDive for detailed case analysis
  • Over 50,000 existing case briefs
  • Instant briefs for another 6,000,000 cases
  • Highlight dictionary for legal term definitions
  • Social learning with chat and high points

Over 50,000 Cases Briefed

LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.

14-Day Free Trial

Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.

Integrated Legal Dictionary

Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.

Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.

DeepDive

DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.

Brief anything. Instantly.

Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.

Social Learning with Chat and High Points

Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.

Real-Time Brief Feedback

Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.

Joseph Martin, Jr., Delicatessen v. Schumacher

Chat for Joseph Martin, Jr., Delicatessen v. Schumacher
brief-140
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.