Case Name: Joseph Spitz, Respondent, v. The New York Taxicab Company, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1909-03
Citations: 62 Misc. 492
Docket Number: 
Parties: Joseph Spitz, Respondent, v. The New York Taxicab Company, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 62
Pages: 492–494

Head Matter:
Joseph Spitz, Respondent, v. The New York Taxicab Company, Appellant.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,
March, 1909.)
Municipal Courts — Procedure; Pleading; Complaint — Sufficiency-Effect of bill of particulars; Demurrer — To oral complaint: Judgments— Interlocutory judgment on demurrer.
The provision of section 145 (2) of the Municipal Court Act of the city of New York, that a demurrer to a written complaint must be in writing, is not in derogation of the preceding declaration in said section that pleadings, including demurrers, may be oral; and a written demurrer may be interposed to an oral complaint.
The words “ Complaint Personal Injuries,” etc., indorsed upon a summons issued by the Municipal 'Court of the city of New York, do not amount to a plain and concise statement of facts constituting a cause of action; and the service, eight days after joinder of issue, of a bill of particulars creates no issue of fact not theretofore tendered defendant; and plaintiff, upon the filing of a written demurrer to such complaint, should have been allowed to amend under section (4) of the Municipal Court Act.
Where plaintiff entered a paper styled “Interlocutory judgment on demurrer ” which had rather the incidents of an order than a judgment, but no point or contention based upon the discrepancy was raised on appeal from the so-called interlocutory judgment, it will be presumed that there was such a judgment.
Dayton, J. dissented.
Appeal by the defendant from an interlocutory j udgment of the Municipal Oourt of the city of New York, third district, borough of Manhattan, rendered in favor of the plaintiff.
Lewis D. Mooney, for appellant.
M. Strassman, .for respondent.

Opinion:
MacLean, J.
TJpon November 2, 1908, the return day of a free summons, indorsed: " Complaint Personal Injuries," etc., the defendant interposed the written demurrer: " The complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action." This, on November thirtieth, the learned trial justice disallowed, with ten dollars costs, because, as he opined, " Section 145, Sub-div. 2 of the Municipal Court Act allows demurrers only where there is a written complaint." This was error.
That subdivision of section 145 does indeed provide that a demurrer to a written complaint must be in writing; but this is no more in derogation of the preceding declaration in the same section that pleadings, including demurrers, in the Municipal Court may be oral or written, than is the requirement that a pleading subsequent to a verified pleading must commonly be verified. The court should have deemed the demurrer well founded and allowed the plaintiff, not the defendant, to amend. Subd. 4. The words indorsed upon the summons did not amount to a statement, plain, concise or otherwise, of facts constituting a cause of action. Nor were they helped out by the service, eight days after the joinder of issue, of a bill of particulars which could not create an issue of fact not theretofore tendered the defendant.
What was entered by the plaintiff upon the decision of the learned trial justice and styled " Interlocutory judgment on demurrer " has rather the incidents of an order than of a judgment; but, as neither point nor contention is based on that discrepancy, it may be disregarded or overlooked on presumption. Cawley v. Costello, 15 Hun, 303.
Judgment reversed, with costs to the appellant, but with leave to the respondent to plead anew upon payment of costs and disbursements.
Gildersleeve, J., concurs.