Case Name: ROSENTHAL v. RIESSER et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1907-12-12
Citations: 107 N.Y.S. 563
Docket Number: 
Parties: ROSENTHAL v. RIESSER et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 107
Pages: 563–563

Head Matter:
ROSENTHAL v. RIESSER et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
December 12, 1907.)
Courts—Municipal Courts—Jurisdiction.
Under the express provisions of Municipal Court Act, Laws 1902, p. 1533, c. 580, § 139, the Municipal Court is without jurisdiction of an action on a written contract of .conditional sale of personal property.
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Seventh District.
Action by Joseph Rosenthal against Eli J. Riesser and another. Judgment for plaintiff, and Riesser appeals. Reversed, and complaint dismissed as to both defendants.
Argued before GILDERSEEEVE, P. J., and GUY and BRUCE, JJ-
Douglas Armitage, for appellant.
Jacob Newman, for respondent.

Opinion:
GUY, J.
The action against the defendant Rabinowitz is based upon a written contract for conditional sale of personal property, and comes-within the prohibition of section 139 of the Municipal Court Act, Laws-1902, p. 1533, c. 580. The Municipal Court had therefore no jurisdiction of this cause of action against the said defendant. As to the-defendant Riesser, there is an entire failure of proof on the part of the plaintiff as to any act on the part of said defendant constituting a conversion of the property in question, and positive proof by said defendant, corroborated by another witness, that said property was never in the possession of the defendant Riesser.
The judgment is therefore reversed, and the complaint dismissed as to both defendants, with costs to the appellant in this court and the court below. All concur.