From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dahm v. O'Connell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 31, 1917
179 App. Div. 363 (N.Y. App. Div. 1917)

Opinion

July 31, 1917.

Daniel J. McParland, for the appellant.

Alfred J. Talley [ Joseph A. McNamara with him on the brief], for the respondent.


Where a complaint is demurred to, plaintiff has three ways to test such demurrer. If he moves for judgment under Code of Civil Procedure, section 547, the court which sustains the demurrer should deny this motion by an order. Without some cross-motion or some notice of a trial of the issues of law, judgment should not be entered for defendant. ( Ventriniglia v. Eichner, 138 App. Div. 274; Manhattan Jamaica Railway Co. v. Brady, 170 id. 322; Taishoff v. Elkema, 171 id. 288, 295.) Agreeing with the learned court at Special Term that the complaint was insufficient ( 96 Misc. Rep. 582), we think the court should have imposed only motion costs. ( Keyes v. Lestershire Heights Realty Co., 173 App. Div. 336.)

The judgment must, therefore, be reversed, and instead an order should be entered denying plaintiff's motion, with ten dollars costs.

JENKS, P.J., STAPLETON, RICH and BLACKMAR, JJ., concurred.

Judgment reversed, and instead an order is directed to be entered denying plaintiff's motion, with ten dollars costs.


Summaries of

Dahm v. O'Connell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 31, 1917
179 App. Div. 363 (N.Y. App. Div. 1917)
Case details for

Dahm v. O'Connell

Case Details

Full title:JAMES H. DAHM, Appellant, v . JOHN S. O'CONNELL, Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jul 31, 1917

Citations

179 App. Div. 363 (N.Y. App. Div. 1917)
166 N.Y.S. 450

Citing Cases

Bryant v. Shaw

In Taishoff v. Elkema ( 171 App. Div. 288), Mr. Justice PAGE, after discussing the rules of practice…