Mormon v. Acura of Valley Stream

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Mormon v. Acura of Valley Stream

190 Misc. 2d 697, 740 N.Y.S.2d 548, 2001 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1214

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedDecember 6, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 190 Misc. 2d 697 (Mormon v. Acura of Valley Stream) 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

Mormon v. Acura of Valley Stream, 190 Misc. 2d 697, 740 N.Y.S.2d 548, 2001 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1214 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

[698]*698Plaintiffs action, instituted in the Small Claims Part of the District Court, which seeks to recover money damages, in essence also seeks reformation of a contract based on mistake and/or fraud (see generally, Chimart Assoc. v Paul, 66 NY2d 570, 574). The jurisdiction of the Small Claims Part of the District Court is limited to “any cause of action for money only not in excess of three thousand dollars” (UDCA 1801 [emphasis added]). The small claims court, therefore, was without jurisdiction to grant the relief sought by plaintiff, which is equitable in nature (see, Menkis v Whitestone Sav. & Loan Assn., 78 Misc 2d 329). Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the action dismissed without prejudice to plaintiff, if she be so advised, to renewal in the appropriate forum.

We note that the statute confers the District Court, as well as the Civil Court and City Court with jurisdiction over counterclaims for rescission or reformation (see, UDCA 208 [c]; CCA 208 [c] [1]; UCCA 208 [c]). However, while the New York City Civil Court Act also specifically provides that the Civil Court “shall have jurisdiction of actions for rescission or reformation” (CCA 213), there is no comparable provision in the Uniform District Court Act conferring such equitable jurisdiction. The District Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and hence possesses no equity jurisdiction except as specifically conferred upon it by statute (NY Const, art VI, § 15; Petrides v Park Hill Rest., 265 App Div 509).

Floyd, P.J., Doyle and Winick, JJ., concur.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

[698]*698Plaintiffs action, instituted in the Small Claims Part of the District Court, which seeks to recover money damages, in essence also seeks reformation of a contract based on mistake and/or fraud (see generally, Chimart Assoc. v Paul, 66 NY2d 570, 574). The jurisdiction of the Small Claims Part of the District Court is limited to “any cause of action for money only not in excess of three thousand dollars” (UDCA 1801 [emphasis added]). The small claims court, therefore, was without jurisdiction to grant the relief sought by plaintiff, which is equitable in nature (see, Menkis v Whitestone Sav. & Loan Assn., 78 Misc 2d 329). Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the action dismissed without prejudice to plaintiff, if she be so advised, to renewal in the appropriate forum.

We note that the statute confers the District Court, as well as the Civil Court and City Court with jurisdiction over counterclaims for rescission or reformation (see, UDCA 208 [c]; CCA 208 [c] [1]; UCCA 208 [c]). However, while the New York City Civil Court Act also specifically provides that the Civil Court “shall have jurisdiction of actions for rescission or reformation” (CCA 213), there is no comparable provision in the Uniform District Court Act conferring such equitable jurisdiction. The District Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and hence possesses no equity jurisdiction except as specifically conferred upon it by statute (NY Const, art VI, § 15; Petrides v Park Hill Rest., 265 App Div 509).

Floyd, P.J., Doyle and Winick, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 Misc. 2d 697, 740 N.Y.S.2d 548, 2001 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1214, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mormon-v-acura-of-valley-stream-nyappterm-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack