Case Name: J. Kent Warden, Appellant, v. Harry S. Goldman, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1914-02
Citations: 84 Misc. 87
Docket Number: 
Parties: J. Kent Warden, Appellant, v. Harry S. Goldman, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 84
Pages: 87–95

Head Matter:
J. Kent Warden, Appellant, v. Harry S. Goldman, Respondent.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
February, 1914.)
Jurisdiction—of subject-matter — in a Municipal Court — amount involved— modification of judgment.
The complaint in a Municipal Court action demanded judgment for $653 with interest. Defendant offered no evidence and after the denial of a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure of proof a motion for judgment for $500 was granted. On appeal by plaintiff for a modification of said judgment by inserting “ defendant liable to arrest and imprisonment on • execution,” held:
That the judgment should be reversed and the complaint dismissed.
That as the complaint demanded judgment for more than $500 the court did not have jurisdiction of the subject-matter, and the defect was neither cured by defendant’s appearance at the trial nor by his failure to raise the objection, as his consent could not confer jurisdiction.
Lehman, J. dissents.
Appeal from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, borough of Manhattan, third district, in favor of the plaintiff, after a trial by the court without a jury.
Walter Carroll Low, for appellant.
Respondent filing no brief.

Opinion:
Page, J.
This appeal was taken by the plaintiff from a judgment in his own behalf to procure a modification of the judgment by inserting therein the words " defendant liable to arrest and imprisonment on execution," The respondent did not appear upon this appeal. The verified complaint demands judgment for the sum of $653, with interest thereon. The summons also stated that in default of appearance and answer judgment would be taken for the aforesaid sum. The defendant appeared at the trial but offered no evidence, resting on his motion to dismiss the complaint for a failure of proof. The plaintiff then announced that he would take judgment for $500, which was granted. The action having been brought to recover more than $500, the Municipal Court did not have jurisdiction of the action. Mun. Ct. Act, § 1. Not having jurisdiction it could not render judgment for $500 on the consent of the plaintiff. Section 250 of the Municipal Court Act only allows the party whom the proof shows to be entitled to a larger judgment than he had demanded to remit the excess amount and take judgment for $500. The jurisdiction of the court is determined by the amount for which judgment was demanded. Hamburger v. Hillman, 103 App. Div. 263.
As the court did not have jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action the defect was not cured by the appearance of the defendant nor by his failure to raise the objection, for in such a case consent even does not confer jurisdiction.
The judgment will, therefore, be reversed and the complaint dismissed, without costs.
Bijtjr, J., concurs.