Case ID: ny-sup-ct_13/html/0247-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Davis, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SARAH BROWN, Respondent, v. JOSEPH CROMIEN and others, Appellants.
    
      District Oou/rt in city of New York —jurisdiction of.
    
    Appeal from an order of the Special Term, continuing an injunction.
    This action was brought to restrain the defendants Liddy, from prosecuting proceedings, instituted by them before one of the district justices of the city of New York, against the plaintiff for forcible entry and detainer, under the provisions of the act entitled, “ Summary proceedings to recover the possession of land in certain cases ” (2 R. S., 507), to remove the plaintiff from the possession of certain premises in the city of New York, into which she had forcibly entered. The General Term held, that although the Revised Statutes (2 R. S., 510, § 18) expressly conferred jurisdiction over proceedings of this character upon the district justices, yet as section 77 of the act entitled, “An act to. reduce the several acts relating to District Courts of the city of New York into one act ” (Laws of 1857, chap. 344), expressly enumerated proceedings for the summary removal of tenants, provided for by article 2, title 10, chapter 8 of Revised Statutes, but entirely omitted the proceedings under article 1 of the same chapter, relating to forcible entry and detainer, it was a matter of grave doubt, whether any jurisdiction over proceedings of the latter character now existed .in the District Court. It was therefore considered best to retain the temporary injunction until the trial of the action.
    
      John Goodlet, for appellants. George W. Lord, for respondent.
   Opinion by

Davis, P. J.

Bradt and Daniels, JJ., concurred.

Order affirmed, without costs to either party.