at that time in support of her trial testimony.
The defendant testified that he elected to hold the $850 because she did not give him 30
days' notice of her intent to leave before 5/30/09 having given him notice on or about 4/15/09
when the plaintiff said that the termination date was not 5/30/09 in the agreement . The
defendant who had provided the Court with pages 2-6 of the lease said the first page would show
the 5/30/09 date. He produced his missing page he had left in his car before Court (Ex-C). The
plaintiff objected in writing to it saying it was clear the termination date was altered from
4/10/09 to 5/30/09 (Ex-B).
The plaintiff also informed the Court that immediately after the parties made the 4/28/09
walk through the defendant had new tenants see the premises while she was there and these
people were moved into the leasehold as of 5/1/09. She further testified that if the defendant had
argued the notice issue before she left she would have merely remained there until 5/10/09 until
the end of the lease term to avoid forfeiture of the $850 as provided at paragraph 34. The
defendant agreed that he commenced a new lease with different tenants as of 5/1/09 and did not
claim he lost any rent for May of 2009 because the tenant left 4/30/09.
The credible evidence shows that the parties agreed to a surrender termination of this lease
agreement.
Surrender Termination of Agreement
In
Riverside Research Institute, et al v KMGA, 68 NY2d 689, the Court stated:
"A surrender by operation of law occurs when the parties to a lease both do some act so
inconsistent with the landlord-tenant relationship that it indicates their intent to deem the lease
terminated (Harris v Hiscock, 91 NY 340, 344; 2 Rasch, Landlord and Tenant Section