Case Name: PEABODY et al. v. LONG ACRE SQUARE BLDG. CO.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1905-06-19
Citations: 94 N.Y.S. 507
Docket Number: 
Parties: PEABODY et al. v. LONG ACRE SQUARE BLDG. CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 94
Pages: 507–510

Head Matter:
PEABODY et al. v. LONG ACRE SQUARE BLDG. CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
June 19,1905.)
Landlobd and Tenant—Summaby Pboceedings—Rent Due.
Where summary proceedings were based on both the nonpayment of rent and the nonpayment of taxes, and the nonpayment of rent was sufficiently proven, it sustains an order in favor of the landlord.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 32, Cent Dig. Landlord and Tenant, §§ 1275, 1276.]
McCall, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Municipal Court, Burough of Manhattan, Tenth District.
Summary proceedings by Charles A. Peabody and others against the Long Acre Square Building Company to recover possession of certain rented premises. From a final order in favor of plaintiffs, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before SCOTT, P. J., and GIEGERICH and McCALL, JJ-
Herbert R. Limburger, for appellant.
Baker & Peabody, for respondents.

Opinion:
SCOTT, P. J.
It is claimed by the tenant (appellant) that the petition was defective, in that it failed to allege that the three-days notice was served as required by law. It is true that in the body of the petition there is an omission to allege that the marshal at the time of service showed the original notice to the officer of the tenant upon whom the service was made, but the petition in terms refers to and "makes part of the petition" the original notice and proof of service, and that proof shows that the original notice was exhibited to the-person served. This would seem to answer the objection, but, even if it did not, it is, in. my opinion, too late to now take the point. The record shows that the tenant did not at any time make the objection in the court below; and, in my opinion, it must be deemed to have thereby submitted itself to the jurisdiction. Stuyvesant Real Estate Co. v. Sherman, 40 Misc. Rep. 205, 81 N. Y. Supp. 642. It is true that in the case above cited the court sa)rs that the question upon which the case was decided in this court, "as it involves a question of jurisdiction of the court below, must be considered, although raised for the first time on appeal." It appeared in that case, however, that the petition had been dismissed upon another objection made by the tenant. The appellate court found this particular objection untenable, but, in passing upon the propriety of the order of dismissal, found itself called upon to examine every question not expressly waived below. As the tenant had been successful below in his first objection, he had neither reason nor opportunity to present any other, and therefore could not be held to have waived one that he otherwise might have raised. A summary proceeding does not differ in any essential particular from any other civil action or proceeding, so far as concerns the jurisdiction of the court to entertain it. The general rule in all civil actions is that a party may stipulate away all his fights—questions of jurisdiction as well as others—and he may do this by express agreement, by acts inconsistent with the objection, or by his silence and omission to present the proper points when he ought to object. Cowenhoven v. Ball, 118 N. Y. 231, 23 N. E. 470; Vose v. Cockcroft, 44 N. Y. 415. Not having spoken when he ought, he will not be permitted to speak when he will. Johnson v. Oppenheim, 55 N. Y. 291. As was said in Cowenhoven v. Ball, supra:
"The distinction is clear between objections which are in the case and arise upon the evidence, and are involved in the controversy between the parties, and those which are to the proceedings, and not connected with the matters in issue, but are preliminary, and go only to the rights and power of the court to hear the case. The former are meritorious, and are available to the unsuccessful party on appeal, although they may not have been considered in the lower court. The latter are technical, and do not affect the merits, and are deemed to have been waived if the party proceeds with the trial or argument of the case without raising them."
Applying this rule to the case at bar, it seems quite clear that the jurisdictional defect upon which the appellant now relies was one which could be and was waived by the appearance and answer of the defendant, and its proceeding to trial and judgment without suggesting the defect in the service, or in the allegations of the petition respecting it. The tenant appeared on the return day and obtained time to plead; the answer contained no plea to the jurisdiction; and at the trial, although several objections to the jurisdiction were raised by motion to dismiss, and were rightly overruled, the particular objection now urged was at no time suggested. If the tenant had desired to avail itself of the objection, it should have been taken at the trial. If then overruled, the tenant, having saved the point by proper exception, might safely have proceeded with the trial. The objection would then have.been available upon an appeal from the final order. The answer contained a general denial, and thus put the landlords to their proof; and here, also, .they failed to show that the three-days notice was served in the manner prescribed by statute, in that there was no evidence that the original notice was exhibited to the officer of defendant on whom service was attempted to be made. Here, again, however, the tenant omitted to call attention to this defect in the proof, or to include it among the reasons for dismissing the petition. We are bound to assume that, if attention had been called to the omission, it would have been supplied, since the marshal's certificate, attached to the petition, and made a part thereof by reference, shows proper statutory service. It is too late for the tenant now to take advantage of the omission. In my opinion, the payment of the taxes after appearance and the filing of the answer was wholly insufficient to defeat the landlord's right to a final order, and evidence of such payment was inadmissible. No such issue was presented by the pleadings, and the only issues to be tried are those raised by the petition and answer. Section 2247, Code Civ. Proc. The landlord's right to a final order is to be determined by the result of such a trial. There is no provision of law authorizing the court to refuse a final order under such circumstances, and it is only the final order which is appealed from, and with which we now have to deal. Under section 2254, Code Civ. Proc., the issue of a warrant may be stayed, after a final order is made, by paying the taxes due and the costs of the proceeding; but this provision relates only to the issue of the warrant, and not to the granting of the final order. Doubtless the payment of the taxes before the granting of the final order, if supplemented by payment of the costs of the proceeding, may be availed of to stay the warrant, but not to prevent the adjudication in favor of the landlord upon the issues raised by the pleadings, and the grant of a final order thereon. In the present case, however, the proceeding was based upon both the nonpayment of rent and the nonpayment of taxes. The nonpayment of rent was sufficiently proven, and that alone is enough to sustain the final order, which should be affirmed, with costs.
Final order affirmed, with costs.
GIEGERICH, J., concurs in result.