Case Name: Inetta Barnett, Respondent, v. The Metropolitan Street Railway Co., Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1900-06
Citations: 32 Misc. 98
Docket Number: 
Parties: Inetta Barnett, Respondent, v. The Metropolitan Street Railway Co., Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 32
Pages: 98–99

Head Matter:
Inetta Barnett, Respondent, v. The Metropolitan Street Railway Co., Appellant.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,
June, 1900.)
Judgment — Admissibility, on appeal, of record evidence to support.
Where the record of the trial of an action for negligence in the Municipal Court of the city of New York does not show that, at the time of the accident, the defendant was a domestic corporation, having its principal place of business in the city of New York — a fact necessary to jurisdiction in that court — the plaintiff may, in support of her judgment, supply the defect, on appeal, by introducing on the argument a certified copy of the certificate of the defendant’s incorporation.
Appeal from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, eleventh district, borough of Manhattan, entered on a verdict of a jury, in favor of the plaintiff.
Henry A. Robinson, for appellant.
J. Baldwin Hands, for respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The brief of the appellant states 'that this appeal was taken in order to raise the point that there is no proof in the case that the defendant was at the time of the accident, a domestic corporation, with its principal place of business in the city of New York, and that, therefore, the plaintiff has failed to show that the defendant was within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Court of New York. Since the appeal was taken, the plaintiff has served upon the defendant a notice that she would produce before this Appellate Term a certified copy of the certificate of incorporation of the defendant, in order to support the judgment. This the plaintiff had a right to do. It may be that the court could take judicial notice of the fact that the defendant is a domestic corporation, and that its principal place of business is in the city of New York, but, in any event, it has frequently been held that an omission, in proof, of a matter of record may be supplied on appeal to sustain a judgment, when a record cannot be answered or changed. Dunford v. Weaver, 84 N. Y. 445; Day v. Town of New Lots, 107 id. 148; Dunham v. Townshend, 118 id. 281.
Judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs.
Present: Truax, P. J., Scott and Dugro, JJ.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.