Case Name: Harry Abrams, Respondent, v. John B. Costas, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1918-03
Citations: 102 Misc. 714
Docket Number: 
Parties: Harry Abrams, Respondent, v. John B. Costas, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 102
Pages: 714–717

Head Matter:
Harry Abrams, Respondent, v. John B. Costas, Appellant.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
March, 1918.)
Counterclaim — Municipal Court of city of New York — actions — negligence — pleading — evidence.
In an action brought in the Municipal Court of the city of New York to recover rent the defendant, who counterclaims for the amount of damage to his goods during his occupancy of the leased premises by reason of defective plumbing due to the alleged negligence of the plaintiff who agreed to pay the amount stated in the counterclaim, is entitled to offer evidence in support of his counterclaim, and the exclusion of testimony, under a ruling that a counterclaim in negligence could not be pleaded in the action, was error calling for the reversal of a judgment in favor of plaintiff.
Appeal by defendant from judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, borough of Manhattan, seventh district, in favor of plaintiff.
Macklin, Brown & Purdy (Theodore H. Ward, of counsel), for appellant.
Harry A. Gordon (Reuben Tally, of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion:
Guy, J.
The landlord by oral complaint sued for rent; the tenant answered " general denial, demands bill of particulars, counterclaim for $187.65," and filed a bill of particulars of his counterclaim, in which it is stated that during his occupancy of the demised premises goods of the value of $187-.65 were- damaged by reason of defective plumbing in the landlord's building, which defective plumbing was due to the neglect and carelessness of the landlord, and that the landlord agreed to pay the tenant $187.65 for the damages.
On the trial the tenant was prevented, under plaintiff's objection, from showing the damage as alleged in the counterclaim, the court stating that the counterclaim in negligence could not be set up, to which ruling defendant excepted.
It is evident that defendant's bill of particulars was drawn by his counsel with the view of obviating the objection under the Code of Civil Procedure and the former Municipal Court Act to interposing a counterclaim for negligence in an action on contract, and the ruling of the trial court was based on the provisions of those statutes.
Under the Municipal Court Code, however, which defines the present practice in that court, it is permissible to plead a counterclaim based on tort in an action on contract. Mun. Ct. Code, § 85. - And see Lauer's Edition, 41A418.
If defendant proved, as claimed in his bill of particulars, that by reason of the negligence of plaintiff water escaped from a pipe on the premises and damaged defendant's property the landlord would be liable for the damages irrespective of the question whether he agreed to pay such damage or not.
Although the court apparently, under the provisions of section 85 of the Municipal Court Code, has in certain cases the right to strike out a counterclaim, such power was not exercised in this case, the court excluding evidence evidently for the sole reason that it was an effort to prove a tort as against a contractual obligation.
The judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered, with thirty dollars costs to appellant to abide the event.
Weeks, J., concurs; Mullan, J., concurs in opinion.