Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges

DEAN SAGE et al., Appellants, v. WILLIAM CROSBY, Respondent.

Per Curiam.

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.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

SAGE v. CROSBY
(Nov 1, 1900)