Case Name: Peter Schwartz, Respondent, v. The Interborough Rapid Transit Company, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1907-03
Citations: 53 Misc. 289
Docket Number: 
Parties: Peter Schwartz, Respondent, v. The Interborough Rapid Transit Company, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 53
Pages: 289–290

Head Matter:
Peter Schwartz, Respondent, v. The Interborough Rapid Transit Company, Appellant.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,
March, 1907.)
Municipal Courts — Jurisdiction — Municipal Court of the city of New York — Action against carrier.
The Municipal Court of the city of New York has jurisdiction of an action against a carrier for the breach of its agreement to carry safely, though such breach be accompanied by acts of the carrier’s servants amounting to an assault upon the plaintiff.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of Mew York, seventh district, borough of Manhattan.
Charles A. Gardiner (G. Carleton Goldthwaite, of counsel), for appellant.
. Steiner & Petersen (Jerome Steiner, of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion:
Davis, J.
Appeal from judgment rendered in the Municipal Court in favor of plaintiff for $278.75. The action was brought to recover damages for personal injuries. The defendant claims that the action was for damages resulting from an assault upon plaintiff by the defendant's servants. In such a case the Municipal Court has no jurisdiction and the judgment should be reversed. Interpreting this complaint in the light of the decision of the Court of Appeals in the case of Busch v. Interborough R. T. Co., 187 N. Y. 388; N. Y. L. J., March 8, 1907, it will appear clearly that the cause of action set forth is the violation of defendant's contract to carry safely. The complaint sets forth facts showing that the plaintiff became a lawful passenger, and then proceeds to state that the servants of the defendant, while acting as such servants, without cause or provocation and in breach and violation of the duties and obligations of the defendant toward the plaintiff, assaulted me plaintiff, etc
•The action was for a breach of contract and the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
Gildersleeve and Hendrick, JJ., concur.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.