Case Name: SPITZ v. NEW YORK TAXICAB CO.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1909-03-05
Citations: 115 N.Y.S. 247
Docket Number: 
Parties: SPITZ v. NEW YORK TAXICAB CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 115
Pages: 247–249

Head Matter:
(62 Misc. Rep. 492.)
SPITZ v. NEW YORK TAXICAB CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
March 5, 1909.)
1. Courts (§ 189 )—Municipal Courts—Demurrers to Complaint—Statutory Provisions.
Municipal Court Act (Laws 1902, p. 1535, c. 580) § 145, provides that pleadings in the Municipal Court may be oral or written. Subdivision 2 provides that where a written complaint is served with the summons a written demurrer must be filed. Held, that subdivision 2 is not in derogation of the preceding provision, and does not restrict demurrers to complaints which are in writing.
[Bid. Note.—For other cases, see Courts, Dec. Dig. § 189.*]
2. Courts (§ 189*)—Municipal Court of New York—Pleading—Sufficiency of Complaint—Demurrer.
The statement, “Complaint, personal injuries, etc.,’’ indorsed on a summons in the Municipal Court, is not a statement of facts constituting a cause of action, and a demurrer thereto should be sustained, and plaintiff allowed to amend, under Municipal Court Act (Laws 1902, p. 1536, c. 580) § 145, subd. 4, providing that, where the court deems a demurrer well founded, it must permit the pleading to be amended.
[Bid. Note.—For other cases, see Courts, Dec. Dig. § 189.*]
3. Courts (§ 189*)—Municipal Courts—Bill of Particulars—Effect on Defective Complaint.
A complaint in the Municipal Court, not stating a cause of action, could not be aided by a bill of particulars served eight days after joinder of is sue, since the bill of particulars could not create an issue of fact not theretofore tendered defendant.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Courts, Dec. Dig. § 189. ]
4. Appeal and Error (§ 934*) — Review — Presumptions—Entry of Appeal-able Judgment.
Though an entry by plaintiff, styled “interlocutory judgment on demurrer,” upon a decision of the Municipal Court on overruling a demurrer to the complaint, has rather the incidents of an order than of a judgment, where the point is not raised on appeal from an “interlocutory judgment,” it will be presumed that there was an interlocutory judgment.
[Ed. Note.—For other eases, see Appeal and Error, Dec. Dig. § 934.*]
Dayton, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Third District.
Action by Joseph Spitz against the New York Taxicab Company. From a Municipal Court judgment overruling a demurrer to the complaint, defendant .appeals. Reversed, with leave to plaintiff to plead anew.
Argued before GILDERSLEEVE, P. J., and MacLEAN and DAYTON, JJ.
Lewis D. Mooney, for appellant.
M. Strassman, for respondent.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
For other cases see same topic & § number in.Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep'r Indexes

Opinion:
MacLEAN, J.
Upon November 2, 1908, the return day of a free summons indorsed, "Complaint, personal injuries, etc.," the defendant interposed a written demurrer:
"The complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action."
This on November 30th the learned trial justice disallowed, with $10 costs, because, as he opined:
"Section 145, subd. 2, of the Municipal Court act (Laws 1902, p. 1530, c. 580), allows demurrers only where there is a written complaint."
This was error. That subdivision of section 145 does, indeed, provide that a demurrer to a written complaint must be in writing; but this is no more in derogation of the preceding declaration in the same section that pleadings, including demurrers, in the Municipal Court, may be oral or written, than is the requirement that a pleading subsequent to a verified pleading must commonly be verified. The court should have deemed the demurrer well founded, and allowed the plaintiff, not the defendant, to amend (subdivision 4). The words indorsed upon the summons did not amount to a statement, plain, concise, or otherwise, of facts constituting a cause of action. Nor were they holpen out by the service eight days after the joinder of issue of a bill of particulars, which could not create an issue of fact not theretofore tendered the defendant.
. What was entered by the plaintiff upon the decision of the learned trial justice, and styled "interlocutory judgment on demurrer," has rather the incidents of an order than of a judgment; but, as neither point nor contention is based on that discrepancy, it may be disre garded or overlooked oil presumption. Cawley v. Costello, 15 Hun, 303.
Judgment reversed, with costs to the appellant, but with leave to-the respondent to plead anew upon payment of costs and disbursements.
GILDERSEEEVE, P. J., concurs.