Case Name: HYMAN v. NEW YORK MORTGAGE & SECURITY CO.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1908-10-22
Citations: 112 N.Y.S. 669
Docket Number: 
Parties: HYMAN v. NEW YORK MORTGAGE & SECURITY CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 112
Pages: 669–671

Head Matter:
HYMAN v. NEW YORK MORTGAGE & SECURITY CO.
(Supreme Court,. Appellate Division, Second Department.
October 22, 1908.)
1. Trial (§ 165*)—Dismissal—Motions—Dismissal on Merits.
*For other oases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
The court, on a motion by defendant at the close of plaintiff’s case to dismiss the complaint on the ground that plaintiff has not made out a cause of action, cannot dismiss the complaint on the merits.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Trial, Cent. Dig. § 373; Dec. Dig. § 165.*]
2. Contracts (§ 194*)—Construction.
A contract binding one to advance money to another, provided the latter erected buildings in accordance with plans and specifications which were satisfactory to the former and which had been approved by the bureau of buildings of the 'city, did not give the former the right to repudiate the contract because the buildings erected were not satisfactory to him, provided the buildings were in accordance with the plans and specifications.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Contracts, Dec. Dig. § 194.*]
Appeal from Trial Term, Kings County.
Action by Jacob Hyman against the New York Mortgage & Security Company. From a judgment dismissing the complaint on the merits, plaintiff appeals.
Reversed, and new trial granted.
Argued before WOODWARD, JENKS, HOOKER, GAYNOR, and RICH, JJ.
Nathaniel Tonkin, for appellant.
Charles C. Suffren, for respondent.

Opinion:
RICH, J.
At the close of the plaintiff's evidence a motion was made by the defendant to dismiss the complaint, upon the ground that the plaintiff had not made out a cause of action, whereupon the court permitted the plaintiff to open his case and introduce further evidence. While plaintiff's attorney was examining a witness, the learned trial justice of his own motion discharged the jury, took the case under advisement, and subsequently dismissed the complaint on the merits. No evidence was given by the defendant, no motion for a dismissal of the complaint upon the merits was made, and the action was not submitted to the trial court for decision upon the merits. The only motion before it was for a nonsuit, and the dismissal of the complaint upon the merits was erroneous. Ware v. Dos Passos, 162 N. Y. 281, 56 N. E. 742; Keuthen v. Stache, 121 App. Div. 521, 106 N. Y. Supp. 198; Crecelius v. City of New York, 114 App. Div. 801, 100 N. Y. Supp. 314.
I do not think that the learned trial justice would have been justified in granting a nonsuit upon the merits. The action was brought to recover a balance of $2,500, which it was alleged'the defendant agreed to advance to the plaintiff, upon bonds and mortgage of $2,750 each, upon five separate parcels of ground, upon each of which a building was. to be erected or was in process of erection. These five bonds and mortgages had been executed and delivered to the defendant. The five buildings had been erected in conformity with plans and specifications, and during their erection the defendant had made advances according to the terms of its contract. After their completion the plaintiff sold them, subject to the mortgages held by the defendant. When plaintiff demanded the last payment of $500 on each parcel, the defendant refused payment upon the ground that the buildings were not satisfactory to the company and not constructed just as it wanted them. The only indication of the ground upon which the trial court acted in dismissing the complaint is contained in a statement made upon the argument for a nonsuit, as follows:
"They had the right to say they would not advance him any more money, under the agreement. I don't think you have established a prima facie cause of action."
The only provision in which the satisfaction of the defendant is a factor appears in the ninth subdivision of the seventh section, which is as follows:
"If the applicant does not erect said buildings in accordance with plans and specifications which are satisfactory to the party of the second part, and which have been approved by the bureau of buildings for the borough of Brooklyn."
This provision does not secure to the defendant the right to repudiate its contract if the buildings erected were not satisfactory to it. If they were erected in accordance with plans and specifications which were satisfactory to the defendant and had been approved by the bureau of buildings, the defendant had no cause for complaint: The evidence established the existence of plans and specifications, that the buildings had been erected in conformity therewith, and that the defendant had knowledge of such construction. This was sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to go to the jury. Upon the evidence a nonsuit cannot be justified.
The judgment must be reversed, and a new trial granted; costs to abide the event.