Case ID: nys_90/html/1060-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HAMBURGER et al. v. HELLMAN.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    December 7, 1904.)
    1. Courts—Jurisdiction—Municipal Court—Amount op Demand.
    The Municipal Court of New York has no jurisdiction of a case in which plaintiff demands $500 and interest.
    Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Thirteenth District.
    Action by Barnett Hamburger and another against Meyer Heilman. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals.
    Reversed, with leave to respondent to appeal to the Appellate Division.
    Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J„ and BISCHOFF and GILDER-SLEEVE, JJ.
    Messmore Kendall, for appellant.
    Max Schleimer, for respondents.
   PER CURIAM.

The summons in this action demands a judgment for $500 and interest. The pleadings are oral. Plaintiff’s bill of particulars sets forth claims aggregating $507.33. Under the decision of this court in Pierson v. Hughes, 88 N. Y. Supp. 1059, the Municipal Court has no jurisdiction in the action, and the judgment herein must be reversed, and the complaint dismissed, with costs, but, in order to settle this question, with leave to the respondent to appeal to the Appellate Division.