From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sage v. Crosby

Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Nov 1, 1900
33 Misc. 117 (N.Y. App. Term 1900)

Opinion

November, 1900.

Parsons, Shepard Ogden (H.B. Closson and Eugene Smith, of counsel), for appellants.

Frank Z. Demarest, for respondent.


The Code provisions as to a dismissal, where title to real property is involved, relate exclusively to actions, not to proceedings, and such a defense does not oust a Municipal Court justice of jurisdiction in summary proceedings. Quinn v. Quinn, 46 A.D. 241. The final order made below must, therefore, be reversed. Counsel for the appellants is mistaken in his contention that a counterclaim cannot be interposed by a tenant in a summary proceeding. While section 1359 of the Consolidation Act (Laws 1882, chap. 410) does not give such a right, yet section 2244 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides for the interposition of counterclaims in such proceedings, is still applicable to the Municipal Court of the city of New York.

Final order reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to the appellants to abide event.

Present: BEEKMAN, P.J., GIEGERICH and O'GORMAN, JJ.

Final order reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellants to abide event.


Summaries of

Sage v. Crosby

Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Nov 1, 1900
33 Misc. 117 (N.Y. App. Term 1900)
Case details for

Sage v. Crosby

Case Details

Full title:DEAN SAGE et al., Appellants, v . WILLIAM CROSBY, Respondent

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term

Date published: Nov 1, 1900

Citations

33 Misc. 117 (N.Y. App. Term 1900)
67 N.Y.S. 139

Citing Cases

Woods v. Garcewich

In such cases courts of equity do not grant relief. (Pom. Eq. Juris. §§ 1361-1365, 1370; Barker v. Elkins, 1…

Van Deventer v. Foster

The real issue is only as to the right of possession, and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure…