Case ID: ad_44/html/0506-01.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

Michael Kantro, Respondent, v. Robert Armstrong, Appellant.
    
      Constitutional law — the prohibition against.the creation of inferior or local courts with greater jurisdiction than the County Courts — it relates to subject-matter, and versons, not to territory.
    
    Sec.tion'1870 of. the Greater New York charter (Laws of 1897', chap. 378), author- • izing the maintenance in the Municipal Court of the city of New York of an .action against a defendant who resides within the city of New York, although not in the county where the particular branch of the court in which the action is brought- is located, does not contravene section 18 of article 6 of the New ' York State Constitution, which provides that the Legislature -shall not create any inferior or local court with any greater jurisdiction than that conferred upon the County Courts, as the constitutional provision in question was designed to restrict the jurisdiction of local courts, as to subject-matter and persons and not territorially.
    
    ■ Appeal by the defendant,- Robert Armstrong, from a judgment of, the Municipal Court of the city of New York in favor of the plaintiff.
    
      Charles Dussler, for the appellant.
    
      Charles H. Fuller, for the respondent.
    
      
       See Dodge Manufacturing Co. v. Nassau Show Case Co. (post, p. 603).
    
   Per Curiam :

But one point is raised on this appeal, the jurisdiction of the Municipal Court The action was brought in a district in the borough of Brooklyn, while the defendant resides in the borough of Queens. It is insisted that the Greater New York charter (Laws of 1897, chap. 378, § 1370), so far as it attempts to authorize the prosecution of an action in a district of the 'Municipal Court in one county against a defendant who resides within the city but in another county, is in conflict with the constitutional provision (Art. VI, § 18) that the Legislature shall not create any inferior .or local court with any greater jurisdiction than is conferred upon the County Courts. In Irwin v. Metropolitan Street R. Co. (38 App. Div. 253) the validity of the creation of the Municipal Court was challenged on this ground. It was there held, through Yah Brunt, P. J., that the intention of the Constitution by reference to County Courts was to restrict the jurisdiction of new local courts as to subject-matter and persons and not territorially, and that hence the statute creating the Municipal Courts was constitutional. It does not appear that in the case cited the defendant was not a resident of the county in which the action was brought; nevertheless, the principle upon which the decision proceeded controls the disposition of the present case. In the opinion of Justice Yan Brunt we entirely concur, and can add nothing to its force or reason.

The judgment appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.

All concurred, except Woodward, J., absent.

Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.