Case Name: ALEXANDER v. VIDOOTZKY
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1906-03-12
Citations: 97 N.Y.S. 992
Docket Number: 
Parties: ALEXANDER v. VIDOOTZKY.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 97
Pages: 992–993

Head Matter:
ALEXANDER v. VIDOOTZKY.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
March 12, 1906.)
1. Vendor and Purchaser—Contract—Construction—Independent Stipulations.
A separate and independent agreement to take and pay for a policy of title insurance already ordered by the vendor, though incorporated in a contract for the sale of the property, does not make the amount so to be paid part of the consideration for the property.
2. Evidence—Parol Evidence Showing Fraud.
Defendant, making a contract for the purchase of property, agreed to take a policy of title insurance already ordered by plaintiff, and agreed to pay the title company's charge, which plaintiff stated was a certain sum, •and defendant gave a check for such sum. Held, in an action on the check', that defendant could show that he was led to make a promise thus absolute in form in consequence of a false representation as to what the title company’s charge would be.
3. Courts—Municipal Courts—Jurisdiction.
Permitting defendant to make such showing did not Involve any question of the assumption of equitable jurisdiction by the Municipal Court.
Giegerich, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of the Bronx, Second District.
Action by Louis Alexander against Joseph Vidootzky. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Reversed.
Argued before SCOTT, P. J., and GIEGERICH and GREEN-BAUM, JJ.
H. & J. J. Lesser, for appellant.
Abraham M. Pariser, for respondent.

Opinion:
SCOTT, P. J.
I do not consider that defendant's agreement to pay for the policy of title insurance constituted the amount thus to be paid part of the consideration for the property. Although incorporated in the contract of sale, it was a separate and independent agreement. Although the action is upon the check, the defendant had the right to call in question the consideration upon which the check was given, and although the agreement to pay $260, as written in the contract, was absolute, the defendant should, I think, have been permitted "to show that he' was led to make a promise thus absolute in form in consequence of a false representation as to what the cost would be.' The defendant's position is that he agreed to take a policy of insurance already ordered by plaintiff; that he agreed to pay the title company's charge; that plaintiff stated that that was $260; that in reliance upon that statement he made the agreement, absolute in form, to pay $260; and that in fulfillment of that agreement he. gave the check sued upon. He says further that the title company's charge was less than $260, and that plaintiff knowingly misstated the fact. I think that defendant should have been permitted, if he could, to prove the fraud. This would not involve any question of the assumption of equitable jurisdiction by the Municipal Court. Milella v. Simpson (Sup.) 94 N. Y. Supp. 464.
The judgment should be reversed, and a new .trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event.
GREENBAUM, J., concurs.