Case ID: misc_131/html/0303-01.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

William Francis Grady, Respondent, v. Thomas A. McHugh, Appellant.
    Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
    January 21, 1928.
    Courts — Municipal Court of New York — place of trial — word “ or,” as used in Municipal Court Code, § 17, subd. 1, should read “ and ”— action should have been transferred.
    The word “ or ” in the provision of subdivision 1 of section 17 of the Municipal Court Code, that an action may be brought in a district where all the plaintiffs “ or ” ah of the defendants reside out of the city, should be read “ and,” and for that reason this action should have been transferred from the district in which it was brought to the district in which defendant seeks to have the action tried.
    Appeal by defendant (by permission) from an order of the Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, First District, in favor of plaintiff.
    
      W. Gerard Ryan, for the appellant.
    
      Terence James O’Gorman, for the respondent.
   Per Curiam.

The court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to transfer this action from the district in which it was brought to the fifth district, borough of Brooklyn. The word “ or ” in the provision of section 17, subdivision 1, of the Municipal Court Code that an action may be brought in any district where all the plaintiffs or ” all the defendants reside out of the city should be read “ and,” and this court has so construed such action. (See Allen-Foster-Willett Co. v. Ginsberg, Appellate Term, First Department, October, 1915, not reported.)

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs, and motion for transfer of this action to the fifth district, borough of Brooklyn, granted.

All concur; present, Delehanty, Lydon and Levy, JJ.