Case Name: Thomas F. Devine, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. John Kilcommons, Defendant-Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1910-04
Citations: 67 Misc. 177
Docket Number: 
Parties: Thomas F. Devine, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. John Kilcommons, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Gavegan, J., concurs.
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 67
Pages: 177–181

Head Matter:
Thomas F. Devine, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. John Kilcommons, Defendant-Appellant.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,
April, 1910.)
Evidence — Parol evidence—Application to particular instruments and records — Matters relating to judgment and awards — Questions litigated.
Former adjudication—What matters are concluded — Matters actually litigated and determined.
Where it is not clear from the judgment roll alone what issues were determined in a prior action between the same parties, the scope of the prior adjudication may be shown by the minutes of the trial.
A judgment which establishes that defendant had leased certain premises from plaintiff for six months from a certain date where the existence of such lease was the question litigated is res adjudicate, between the parties in a subsequent action for rent accruing during the term of the lease.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of Mew York, borough of Manhattan, third district, entered upon the verdict of a jury directed by the court in favor of the plaintiff.
Kelley & Connelly, for appellant.
James A. Delehanty (Michael F. Dee, of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion:
Seabury, J.
The complaint alleges that the plaintiff is the owner of the premises Kos. 353 and 355 West Sixty-fourth street, Kew York city, and that in the month of August, 1909, the defendant leased from the plaintiff the said premises under a verbal lease for a term of six months beginning with the month of September, 1909, at a monthly rental of $125, payable in advance. In the present action the plaintiff sues to recover the rent alleged to be due for the months of Kovember and December, 1909.
Upon the trial it was conceded that the plaintiff was the owner of the premises. The plaintiff offered in evidence a judgment roll of the Municipal Court in an action between the parties tried before Justice Speigelberg. The stenographer's minutes of that trial were offered in evidence and established beyond all question that in that action the court decided that the defendant had leased the premises for six months from September, 1909, at a monthly rental of $125.
The contention of the appellant that it was error to admit the stenographer's minutes of the previous trial in evidence is not correct. It was not clear from the judgment roll, considered by itself, what issues were determined in the prior action. Under these circumstances it was competent to show the scope of the prior adjudication of the Municipal Court by resort to the minutes of the trial. Stecher v. Independent Order, 45 Mise. Kep. 340. The minutes of the previous trial established that the only issue upon that trial was whether there was a lease between these parties for six months from September 1, 1909, at the monthly rental of $125. That issue having been once resolved in favor of the plaintiff, the determination is res adjudicada between these parties.
It follows that the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
Gavegan, J., concurs.