Case Name: WARDEN v. GOLDMAN
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1914-02-13
Citations: 145 N.Y.S. 989
Docket Number: 
Parties: WARDEN v. GOLDMAN.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 145
Pages: 989–994

Head Matter:
WARDEN v. GOLDMAN.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.
February 13, 1914.)
1. Courts (§ 169*)—Municipal Courts—Jurisdiction—Amount Involved— Remitting Excess. Under Municipal Court Act (Laws 1902, c. 580) § 1, providing that the Municipal Court of New York has jurisdiction of an action for damages where the sum claimed does not exceed $500, where plaintiff’s complaint demanded judgment for more than $500, the court did not have jurisdiction and could not, with plaintiff’s consent, render judgment for $500, since the jurisdiction is determined by the amount for which judgment is demanded, and section 250, providing that, where the amount found due exceeds the sum for which the court is authorized to enter judgment, such party may remit the excess and judgment may be entered for the residue, applies only where a party is shown by the proof to be entitled to a larger judgment than he has demanded.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Courts, Cent. Dig. §§ 413-425, 428-436, 443, 456, 458, 465; Dec. Dig. § 169.*]
2. Courts (§ 37*)—Municipal Courts—Jurisdiction—Effect of Failure to Object. Where the complaint, in an action' in the Municipal Court, demanded judgment for more than $500, the court’s lack of jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the action was not cured by defendant’s appearance, or his failure to object, as in such a case consent does not confer jurisdiction.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Courts, Cent. Dig. §§ 147-149, 151, 156; Dec. Dig. § 37.*]
Lehman, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Third District.
Action by J. Kent Warden against Harry S. Goldman. From a judgment in his favor for insufficient relief after a trial without a jury, plaintiff appeals. Reversed, and complaint dismissed.
Argued January term, 1914, before LEHMAN, PAGE, and BI-JUR, JJ.
Walter Carroll Low, of New York City, for appellant.

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 appear anee 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. Municipal Court 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, 92 N. Y. Supp. 1067.
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.
BIJUR, J., concurs.