Case ID: misc_127/html/0603-01.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

Charles Brambir and Another, Appellants, v. Harry Seifert, Respondent.
    Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
    June 26, 1926.
    Summary proceedings to dispossess — claim for rent —• Civil Practice Act, § 1425 (as amd. by Laws of 1924, chap. 514), providing for judgment for rent does not warrant entry of judgment against tenant not personally served with precept or who has not appeared.
    Section 1425 of the Civil Practice Act (as amd. by Laws of 1924, chap. 514), which provides for judgment for rent, does not warrant the entry of judgment therefor against a tenant not personally served with the precept or who has not appeared in the proceeding.
    Appeal by landlords from an order of the Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Third District, vacating judgment by default against tenant.
    
      Kotzen Brothers [Milton M. Siegel of counsel], for the appellants.
    
      Max Schmer, for the respondent.
   Per Curiam.

We cannot assume that the 1924 amendment of section 1425 of the Civil Practice Act (added by Laws of 1921, chap. 199, as amd. by Laws of 1924, chap. 514), providing for judgment for rent, was intended, contrary to well-established principles, to warrant the entry of judgment for rent against a tenant not personally served with the precept or who had not appeared in the proceeding. .

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs.

All concur; present, Bijur, O’Malley and Levy, JJ.