Case Name: Jacob Hyman, Appellant, v. New York Mortgage and Security Company, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1908-10-22
Citations: 128 A.D. 254
Docket Number: 
Parties: Jacob Hyman, Appellant, v. New York Mortgage and Security Company, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 128
Pages: 254–257

Head Matter:
Jacob Hyman, Appellant, v. New York Mortgage and Security Company, Respondent.
Second Department,
October 22, 1908.
Trial — nonsuit on merits — contract construed— agreement to advance, money for erection of buildings.
Where the defendant at the close of the plaintiff’s case moves for a non-suit, only on the ground that the plaintiff has not made out a cause of action, it is error to dismiss the complaint upon the merits.
One who has agreed to advance money to a person erecting buildings, if the same are “ in accordance with plans and specifications which are satisfactory ’’ to the lender “and which have been approved by the bureau of buildings”, of a municipality, cannot refuse to make the agreed advances merely because the buildings are not satisfactory, if in fact they were erected in accordance with plans and specifications which were satisfactory to the lender and had been, approved by the bureau of buildings.
The borrower suing on a breach of such contract makes out a prima facie case by bare testimony that he “completed these houses in accordance with the plans and specifications,” and places the defendant under the burden of-showing the particulars in which the contract was not. complied with, so that a nonsuit is error..
Appeal by the plaintiff, Jacob Hyman, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendant, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 23d day of November, 1907, upon the dismissal of the complaint upon the merits by direction of the court after a trial at the Kings County Trial Term, the jury having been discharged.
Nathaniel Tonkin, for the appellant.
Charles C. Suffren, for the 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. Ho 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; Keuthen v. Stache, 121 App. Div. 521; Crecelius v. City of New York, 114 id. 801.)
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 indi cation of the ground upon which the trial court acted in disznissing the complaint is contained in a stateznent 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 jprima facie cause of actiozz." The only provision in which the satisfaction of the defendant is a factor appears in the 9th subdivision of the 7th section, which isas follows : " If the applicant does not erect said buildings in accordance with plans and specifications, which az'e satisfactozy 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 satisfactozy to it. If they were ez-ected in accordance with plans and specifications which were satisfactozy 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 dfefendazit 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.