Madison Estates, Inc. v. Rainess

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Madison Estates, Inc. v. Rainess

131 Misc. 45, 225 N.Y.S. 662, 1927 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1239

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedDecember 22, 1927

StatusPublished

This text of 131 Misc. 45 (Madison Estates, Inc. v. Rainess) 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

Madison Estates, Inc. v. Rainess, 131 Misc. 45, 225 N.Y.S. 662, 1927 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1239 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The effect of the amendment of 1924 (Laws of 1924, chap. 514) to section 1425 of the Civil Practice Act being to give the landlord the option to join an action for the recovery of rent with the summary proceeding for possession of the real property, the general provisions of the Civil Practice Act must be read in the light of section 6, subdivision 1, of the Municipal Court Code, which particularly specifies the maximum judgment which may be rendered by the Municipal Court in an action on contract, express or implied, and so construed it is apparent that that court has no jurisdiction in such case to render a judgment in favor of the landlord for an amount in excess of $1,000 with: [46]*46interest and costs. The mere demand in the precept and petition for a judgment exceeding $1,000 does not deprive the court of jurisdiction. (Matter of Byrne v. Padden, 221 App. Div. 764.)

Final order affirmed.

All concur; present, Bijur, Levy and Crain, JJ.

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

Per Curiam.

The effect of the amendment of 1924 (Laws of 1924, chap. 514) to section 1425 of the Civil Practice Act being to give the landlord the option to join an action for the recovery of rent with the summary proceeding for possession of the real property, the general provisions of the Civil Practice Act must be read in the light of section 6, subdivision 1, of the Municipal Court Code, which particularly specifies the maximum judgment which may be rendered by the Municipal Court in an action on contract, express or implied, and so construed it is apparent that that court has no jurisdiction in such case to render a judgment in favor of the landlord for an amount in excess of $1,000 with: [46]*46interest and costs. The mere demand in the precept and petition for a judgment exceeding $1,000 does not deprive the court of jurisdiction. (Matter of Byrne v. Padden, 221 App. Div. 764.)

Final order affirmed.

All concur; present, Bijur, Levy and Crain, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 Misc. 45, 225 N.Y.S. 662, 1927 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1239, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/madison-estates-inc-v-rainess-nyappterm-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack