378 A.2d 767
On March 10, 1972, defendant James Kridel entered into a lease with plaintiff Abraham Sommer for apartment 6-L in the Pierre Apartments in Hackensack for a term from May 1, 1972 until April 30, 1974, with a rent concession for the first six weeks.1 Kridel paid Sommer $690, with half satisfying the first month's rent and the remainder as a security deposit.2 On May 19, 1972, Kridel wrote to Sommer stating that his engagement had been broken, he had no funds of his own as a student supported by his stepfather, and he was surrendering all rights to the apartment while forfeiting the two months' rent already paid.3
Sommer did not answer Kridel's letter.4 A third party inquired about renting apartment 6-L but was told that the apartment was not being shown since it was already rented to Kridel.5 Sommer did not re-enter the apartment or exhibit it to anyone until August 1, 1973, at which time it was rented to a new tenant for a term beginning September 1, 1973.6
In August 1972, Sommer sued Kridel demanding the total amount due for the full two-year term of the lease.7 Following a mistrial, Sommer filed an amended complaint seeking the amount due between May 1, 1972 and September 1, 1973.8 The trial judge ruled in favor of Kridel, the Appellate Division reversed, and the Supreme Court granted certification.910
On December 27, 1972, Carlos Perosio entered into a lease with Riverview Realty Co. for apartment 5-G at 2175 Hudson Terrace in Fort Lee for a two-year term from February 1, 1973 until January 31, 1975 at a monthly rental of $450.11 Perosio occupied the apartment until February 1974, after which he vacated the premises having paid rent through January 31, 1974.12 Riverview Realty filed a complaint on October 31, 1974 demanding payment for the monthly rental from February 1, 1974 through October 31, 1974.13 The trial court granted the landlord’s motion for summary judgment against the defendant.14 The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court.15 The Supreme Court granted certification.
Whether a landlord seeking damages from a defaulting tenant is under a duty to mitigate damages by making reasonable efforts to re-let an apartment wrongfully vacated by the tenant?16
A landlord has a duty to mitigate damages by making reasonable efforts to re-let an apartment wrongfully vacated by the tenant.17
Yes. The rule requires the landlord to treat the abandoned apartment as part of his vacant stock and to use reasonable diligence in re-letting it.18 Sommer v. Kridel demonstrates the breach of this duty because the landlord ignored the surrender and rejected the ready tenant leading to unnecessary accrual of damages.19 The Perosio case requires a remand because the lower courts did not determine whether reasonable efforts were made to mitigate.20
A landlord seeking damages from a defaulting tenant is under a duty to mitigate damages by making reasonable efforts to re-let the apartment.21