Case Name: WALLACE v. HARRIS et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1903-03
Citations: 81 N.Y.S. 652
Docket Number: 
Parties: WALLACE v. HARRIS et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 81
Pages: 652–653

Head Matter:
(40 Misc. Rep. 216.)
WALLACE v. HARRIS et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
March, 1903.)
1. Municipal Courts—Rendition op Judgment.
Municipal Court Act, Laws 1902, p. 1594, c. 580, §i 361, provides that the repeal of any law specified therein shall not affect any act done or right accruing, and that all actions commenced by virtue of the law so repealed and pending September 1, 1902, when the act took effect, may be prosecuted in the "same manner, unless otherwise specially provided. Section 230, p. 1557, provides that the Municipal Court must render judgment within 14 days from the time a ease is submitted. Held, that in an action brought before, but tried after, such act went into effect, the justice has 14 days after submission within which to render judgment, and not 8, as before such act took effect.
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Eighth District.
Action by William Wallace against George Harris and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
Argued before FREEDMAN, P. ]., and GIEDERSLEEVE and GIEGERICH, JJ.
• Alexander Fa Mont, for appellants.
Palmer & Somerville, for respondent.

Opinion:
FREEDMAN, P. J.
All the disputed questions of fact in this case have been disposed of by the trial judge, and we see no reason for disturbing his decision thereon. The appellants strenuously claim, however, that the judgment should be reversed upon the ground that, the action having been commenced before the new Municipal Court law (chapter 580, p. i486, Laws 1902) took effect, the judgment should have been rendered within 8 days after final submission, and not within" 14, as prescribed under the new law, although it is conceded that the trial did not take place until after the new act took effect. In this position we think the appellants are wrong. The new Mu-, nicipal Court act (section 361) provides that the repeal of any law specified therein shall not affect or impair any act done or right ac cruing, accrued, or acquired, and that all actions and proceedings commenced under or by virtue of the laws so repealed and pending September i, 1902, may be prosecuted in the same manner and with the same effect, unless it shall be otherwise specially provided. Section 230 provides that the court must hear the evidence, and decide all questions of law and fact, and render judgment accordingly, within 14 days from the time the same is submitted for that purpose; so that there is a special provision regarding the time which the court may have in which to decide the questions submitted. Section 362 also provides that the provisions of the act, "so far as they are substantially the same as those of laws existing prior to September 1, 1902, shall be construed as a continuation of such laws, modified or amended, according to the language employed in this act, and not as a new enactment." The effect of this section is, therefore, the same as though the old Greater New York Municipal Court charter act (3 Laws 1897, p. 1, c. 378), as amended by Laws 1901, p. 1, c. 466, requiring Municipal Court justices to render judgment within eight days after submission, had been amended to take effect September 1, 1902, extending such time to 14 days. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.