Friedman v. Seward Park Housing Corp.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Friedman v. Seward Park Housing Corp.

167 Misc. 2d 57, 639 N.Y.S.2d 648, 1995 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 674

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedDecember 13, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 167 Misc. 2d 57 (Friedman v. Seward Park Housing Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Friedman v. Seward Park Housing Corp., 167 Misc. 2d 57, 639 N.Y.S.2d 648, 1995 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 674 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Order entered November 22, 1994 reversed, without costs, [58]*58defendant’s motion to dismiss is denied, and the action is reinstated.

Plaintiff, a tenant shareholder in the defendant cooperative, sued in the Small Claims Part for "breach of agreement” in connection with defendant’s alleged failure to paint his apartment. Defendant’s CPLR 3211 (a) (7) dismissal motion was granted by Civil Court upon its finding that plaintiff had "failed to put forth a prima facie case for breach of contract”.

We reiterate the rule that pretrial motions to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action should rarely, if ever, be entertained in Small Claims Court (Ben-Aretz v Neustein, NYLJ, Apr. 7, 1995, at 25, col 3 [App Term, 1st Dept]; Weiner v Tel Aviv Car & Limousine Serv., 141 Misc 2d 339). That court has adopted an "informal and simplified procedure” (CCA 1804) for the inexpensive and expeditious resolution of minor claims. The informality and convenience of small claims practice is necessarily frustrated by requiring pro se litigants to respond to formal motion practice under the CPLR prior to the hearing of their case. "Substantial justice” will best be rendered in this unexceptionable matter by a prompt trial of the simple issues in dispute.

In reinstating the action, we express no view as to its ultimate outcome on the merits.

Parness, J. P., McCooe and Freedman, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Order entered November 22, 1994 reversed, without costs, [58]*58defendant’s motion to dismiss is denied, and the action is reinstated.

Plaintiff, a tenant shareholder in the defendant cooperative, sued in the Small Claims Part for "breach of agreement” in connection with defendant’s alleged failure to paint his apartment. Defendant’s CPLR 3211 (a) (7) dismissal motion was granted by Civil Court upon its finding that plaintiff had "failed to put forth a prima facie case for breach of contract”.

We reiterate the rule that pretrial motions to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action should rarely, if ever, be entertained in Small Claims Court (Ben-Aretz v Neustein, NYLJ, Apr. 7, 1995, at 25, col 3 [App Term, 1st Dept]; Weiner v Tel Aviv Car & Limousine Serv., 141 Misc 2d 339). That court has adopted an "informal and simplified procedure” (CCA 1804) for the inexpensive and expeditious resolution of minor claims. The informality and convenience of small claims practice is necessarily frustrated by requiring pro se litigants to respond to formal motion practice under the CPLR prior to the hearing of their case. "Substantial justice” will best be rendered in this unexceptionable matter by a prompt trial of the simple issues in dispute.

In reinstating the action, we express no view as to its ultimate outcome on the merits.

Parness, J. P., McCooe and Freedman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 Misc. 2d 57, 639 N.Y.S.2d 648, 1995 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 674, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/friedman-v-seward-park-housing-corp-nyappterm-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack