From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Goodovitch v. Reiss

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department
Jan 1, 1927
129 Misc. 152 (N.Y. App. Term 1927)

Opinion

January, 1927.

Present — CROPSEY, MacCRATE and LEWIS, JJ.


Order unanimously reversed upon the law, with ten dollars costs to appellant, and motion denied. Plaintiff appeals from an order granting a motion to vacate a writ of replevin and dismiss the complaint, made by the defendant, upon the ground that the court had not jurisdiction of the action because it involved a chattel worth more than $1,000.

The motion was brought on by an order to show cause, supported by affidavits asserting that the automobile which was the subject of the action was worth more than $1,000. In reply, the plaintiff asserted that, because of use, the automobile was not worth more than $1,000. The motion was made subsequent to an appearance and answer by defendant. Without taking proof, the justice determined that the value of the automobile was in excess of $1,000, and granted the motion to vacate the writ of replevin and dismiss the complaint.

Under the former practice in the Municipal Court, jurisdiction in replevin was acquired if the affidavit of the plaintiff claimed the value of the chattel to be an amount within the court's jurisdiction. ( Dennis v. Crittenden, 42 N.Y. 542.) Under the present practice in the Municipal Court, the actual value, and not the claimed value of the chattel, determined the court's jurisdiction. (Mun. Court Code [Laws of 1915, chap. 279], § 6, subd. 2; Klamkin v. Holland, App. Term, 2d Dept. March, 1924; Kramer v. Frank, 97 Misc. 365.)

Courts generally refuse to determine whether they have jurisdiction of the subject-matter of an action on affidavits. ( Wade v. Wade, 173 A.D. 928; Barber v. Barber, 137 id. 665; Purdum v. Neil, 10 Ida. 263; Von Schroeder v. Brittan, [C.C.] 93 F. 9; Sackett v. Kellogg, 2 Cush. [56 Mass.] 88, 91.) Rule 108 of the Rules of Civil Practice also indicates that where, in the Supreme Court, there is a dispute as to any matter sought to be asserted to defeat an action prior to trial on the merits, the dispute should be settled by taking evidence, either by the court or a referee, or before a jury.

The court should have taken proof in this case. The opinion of an expert, even though uncontradicted, is not controlling. ( Brooklyn Heights R.R. Co. v. Brooklyn City R.R. Co., 124 A.D. 896, 902; Head v. Hargrave, 105 U.S. 45.) The plaintiff was entitled to cross-examine the expert who made the affidavit for defendant, to ascertain his knowledge of the condition of the automobile.


Summaries of

Goodovitch v. Reiss

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department
Jan 1, 1927
129 Misc. 152 (N.Y. App. Term 1927)
Case details for

Goodovitch v. Reiss

Case Details

Full title:GOODOVITCH, Appellant, v. ____ REISS, Respondent

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department

Date published: Jan 1, 1927

Citations

129 Misc. 152 (N.Y. App. Term 1927)
220 N.Y.S. 42

Citing Cases

Smart v. Smart

It is the usual practice to refuse to determine, in advance of the trial, on affidavits, whether or not the…