Summary
In Mandel v Kent (70 AD2d 903, 903 [2d Dept 1979]), the Appellate Division held that the County Court's jurisdictional limit applied "to the entire complaint rather than each cause of action.
Summary of this case from Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v. LyntonOpinion
June 11, 1979
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, defendants appeal from an order of the County Court, Putnam County, dated April 24, 1978, which denied their motion to vacate a default judgment. Order reversed, on the law, defendants' motion to vacate the default judgment is granted, and the action is remanded to County Court so that the matter may be properly transferred to the Supreme Court pursuant to article VI (§ 19, subd b) of the New York State Constitution. Plaintiffs brought an action against defendants in the County Court and sought a recovery of $20,000, composed of two separate $10,000 causes of action for breach of contract and fraud. The action arose out of plaintiffs' unhappiness with the construction of their home by defendants. Upon defendants' default, plaintiffs obtained a $20,000 default judgment, together with interest and costs, in the County Court. The County Court was without jurisdiction in this matter and, therefore, the default must be vacated. The jurisdictional limit of the County Court is $10,000, and this limitation is applicable to the entire complaint rather than to each individual cause of action (N.Y. Const, art VI, § 11, subd a; Judiciary Law, § 190, subd 5; Mennella Foods Corp. v Neptune's Nuggets, 74 Misc.2d 839; Silverman v. Abdul, 85 Misc.2d 11; cf. Halpern v. Langrock Bros. Co., 169 App. Div. 464). The cases of Spetler v. Jogel Realty Co. ( 224 App. Div. 612), Merten v. Queen Rental Corp. ( 241 App. Div. 831) and Baron v. Bobroy, Inc. ( 11 A.D.2d 766) are not to the contrary. In those cases multiple plaintiffs were involved and each plaintiff was limited to a recovery within the jurisdictional limits of the court. Plaintiffs here seek a recovery in excess of the jurisdictional limit of the court and such is contrary to the statutory limitations that presently exist. Insofar as Jordan v Ravitz ( 20 Misc.2d 9) and Weber v. Kowalski ( 85 Misc.2d 349) are to the contrary, they are rejected. Hopkins, J.P., Damiani, O'Connor and Mangano, JJ., concur.