The conveyance of the property by Aaron to Mazer did not terminate the tenants’ obligations under the lease, and Mazer was entitled to have the security held for his benefit. (Mauro v. Alvino, 90 Misc. Rep. 328; Kottler v. N. Y. Bargain House, Inc., 242 N. Y. 37; Marhlove v. Utica C. & B. Co., 48 Misc. Rep. 269.) Defendant Aaron was entitled to the benefit of any counterclaim or setoff existing in favor of Mazer against the plaintiff or her assignors. (Iroquois Door Co. v. Leavenworth Apartment Co., 77 Misc. Rep. 462; Kneuper Specialty Co. v. Kneuper, 171 App. Div. 555; Nat. Surety Co. v. Seaich, 171 App. Div. 414; Wiener v. Boehm, 126 App. Div. 703; Paris v. Lawyers Title Co., 206 N. Y. 637.)
Andrew F. Van Thun, Jr., for Abraham Mazer, appellant.
Paragraphs “ eighth ” and “ ninth ” of the lease are so drawn that liability of the tenants for damage arising from any deficiency in the rent reserved resulting from reletting the premises until September 1, 1930, survives the termination of the relation of landlord and tenant by summary proceedings to recover possession for non-payment of rent, and permits the retention of the deposit until September 1, 1930, as security for the payment and reimbursement to the landlord of any deficiency existing at that time. (Lenco, Inc., v. Hirschfeld, 247 N. Y. 44; Kottler v. N. Y. Bargain House, Inc., 242 N. Y. 28; Darmstadt v. Knickerbocker Chandelier & El. S. Co., 188 App. Div. 129; Halpern v. Manhattan Ave. Theatre Corp., 220 N. Y. 655.) The plaintiff, having adopted the agreement of Mazer made for the benefit of her assignors to return the deposit in accordance with the terms of the lease, is bound thereby. She cannot have the benefit of it without assuming its terms including those of the lease which is made part of it. (Alexander