From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lapof v. Rigerman

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Feb 5, 1926
126 Misc. 569 (N.Y. App. Term 1926)

Opinion

February 5, 1926.

Isidor Tow, for the appellant.

Benjamin Koenigsberg, for the respondent.


The action was brought to take and state an account. On the trial the complaint was dismissed on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction of the subject-matter. The costs were taxed at sixty-five dollars based on the amount set forth in the summons. That a court has the power to award costs where the action is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction is beyond question. ( Day v. Sun Insurance Office, 40 A.D. 305; affd., on opinion below, 167 N.Y. 543; Seacoast Trust Co. v. Mugman, 184 A.D. 895.)

A dismissal of the case at the trial for lack of jurisdiction was a trial within the purview of subdivision 7 of section 164 of the New York City Municipal Court Code and the statutory costs therein provided followed as matter of course. The court below, therefore, erred in striking out the costs as fixed in the judgment.

The order should be reversed and the motion denied, with ten dollars costs.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and motion denied.

All concur; present, BIJUR, DELEHANTY and WAGNER, JJ.


Summaries of

Lapof v. Rigerman

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Feb 5, 1926
126 Misc. 569 (N.Y. App. Term 1926)
Case details for

Lapof v. Rigerman

Case Details

Full title:SIMON J. LAPOF, Respondent, v. JOSEPH RIGERMAN, Appellant

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department

Date published: Feb 5, 1926

Citations

126 Misc. 569 (N.Y. App. Term 1926)
214 N.Y.S. 81

Citing Cases

O'Connor v. La Papila

Carmody in his treatise on New York Practice (vol. 11, p. 105) states that the rule in New York State is that…

Christ v. Allard

A Municipal Court decision ( Weinberg v. Graf, 140 Misc. 51) in the First Department holds that a defendant…