Case Name: DONOVAN v. POWERS
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1916-01-07
Citations: 156 N.Y.S. 691
Docket Number: 
Parties: DONOVAN v. POWERS.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 156
Pages: 691–692

Head Matter:
DONOVAN v. POWERS.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.
January 7, 1916.)
Courts <3=^189—Municipal Court—Judgments .for Costs—Set-Offs.
Where judgment was entered in the Municipal Court May 27, 1915, for defendant for $30 costs, and at the same time a judgment was entered for plaintiff for $10 costs on a motion, defendant’s motion, renewed after September 1, 1915, when the new Municipal Court Act (Laws 1915, c. 279) went into effect, for an order deducting the $10 judgment from the $30 judgment, should have been denied; such act not being retroactive, in view of the express provision -of section 181, giving the court no power to interfere with any judgment previously entered.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Courts, Cent. Dig. §§ 409, 412, 413, 429, 458; Dec. Dig. <S=»189J
<§zs>For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Third District.
Action by Michael J. Donovan against Patrick A. Powers. Prom an order granting defendant’s motion to amend judgment, by offsetting $10 costs awarded to plaintiff from $30 costs awarded to defendant, who was successful on the trial, plaintiff appeals.
Reversed.
Argued November term, 1915, before LEHMAN, BIJUR, and PINCH, JJ.
M. Strassman, of New York City, for appellant.
Charles Burstein, of Brooklyn, for respondent.

Opinion:
LEHMAN, J.
On May 27, 1915, a judgment was entered in favor of the defendant in this action for the sum of $30 costs. At the same time a judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of $10 costs, which had been granted to him on a motion. On July 12, 1915, the defendant moved for an order setting off and deducting the $10 judgment from the $30 judgment. This motion was denied, on the ground that under the Municipal Court Act as then in force the court was without jurisdiction. On September 1, 1915, the new Municipal Court Act went into effect, and the defendant thereupon renewed his motion. The plaintiff now appeals from the order granting the motion.
The new Municipal Court Act specifically provides that "this act shall not be retroactive " (section 181), and it cannot be so construed as to give the court any additional power to amend or interfere with any judgment previously entered. The rights of the parties under such judgments were fixed by the statute then in force.
Order should be reversed, with $10 costs, to be offset against the judgment in defendant's favor. All concur.