Case ID: misc_131/html/0045-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Madison Estates, Inc., Landlord, Appellant, Respondent, v. Harry Rainess and Bessie Rainess, Tenants, Respondents, Appellants.
    Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
    December 22, 1927.
    Municipal Court — city of New York — jurisdiction — action for rent and for summary possession of premises.— Municipal Court has no jurisdiction under Municipal Court Code, § 6, subd. 1, to render judgment in excess of $1,000 with interest and costs.
    In this action by a landlord for rent and for summary possession of the premises, the Municipal Court of the City of New York had no jurisdiction to render a judgment in excess of $1,000 with interest and costs, since subdivision 1 of section 6 of the Municipal Court Code particularly specifies the maximum judgment which may be rendered by that court in an action on contract, express or implied. The mere demand in the precept and petition for judgment exceeding $1,000 does not deprive the court of jurisdiction.
    Cross-appeals by landlord and tenants from judgment of the Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Third District, in favor of landlord and against the tenants in summary proceedings for the possession of real property.
    
      Kramer & Kleinfeld \Barnet Kaprovj of counsel], for the landlord.
    
      George Garfunkel, for the tenants.
   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: interest 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.