O'Connor v. City of New York
| Decision Date | 25 February 1908 |
| Parties | O'CONNOR v. CITY OF NEW YORK. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Superior Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
Action by John O'Connor against the city of New York. From an order of the Appellate Division (120 App. Div. 875,105 N. Y. Supp. 1134) affirming an order of the Appellate Term reversing a judgment for plaintiff, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Charles P. Rogers, for appellant.
Francis K. Pendleton, Corp. Counsel (Theodore Connoly, of counsel), for respondent.
The plaintiff brought an action in the City Court of the city of New York against the city to recover damages for the loss of the services of his wife, occasioned through personal injuries sustained by her from a fall into a coal hole, or vault, in a sidewalk. The objection was taken by answer that the court was without jurisdiction, and a motion to dismiss the complaint, made at the opening of the trial upon that ground, was denied. The plaintiff recovered a judgment, which was reversed at the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, and, upon a further appeal to the Appellate Division, the order of reversal was affirmed. That court, without any expression of opinion, has certified the case to this court for our review. The order of reversal by the Appellate Term was accompanied by an opinion, which discussed the jurisdiction of the City Court, and I think that we can add little, if anything, to the force of the well-reasoned and well-expressed opinion of Mr. Justice Dowling.
The City Court of New York, prior to 1883, was known as the ‘Marine Court of the City of New York’; a court which, in 1819, had succeeded, under that name, to the powers of the Assistant Justices' Court. It was not a constitutional court; nor was it a court of record. By an act passed in 1858 (Laws 1858, p. 569, c. 334), it was given jurisdiction of actions against the mayor, aldermen, and commonalty of the city of New York in which the amount claimed by the plaintiff did not exceed $200; but in 1860 (Laws 1860, p. 645, c. 379) exclusive jurisdiction of such actions or special proceedings was expressly conferred by the Legislature upon the Supreme Court in the First judicial district, the Court of Common Pleas, and the Superior Court of the city of New York. In 1872 (Laws 1872, p. 1493, c. 629) the Marine Court was made a court of record, and it was given jurisdiction of actions against corporations, whether created under or by the laws of this state, or of any other state or country, for the recovery of any debt or damages arising upon contracts made within this state, or upon any cause of action arising therein. The question whether by that enactment the Marine Court regained jurisdiction of actions against the city as a municipal corporation was presented in the case of Callahan v. Mayor, etc., of N. Y., 66 N. Y. 656, and this court held adversely to that contention, and that the provisions of the act of 1872 only comprehended private corporations. When the consolidation act was passed in 1882 (Laws 1882, p. 305, c. 410), it was provided by section 1103 that the Supreme Court, the Court of Common Pleas, and the Superior Court should have exclusive jurisdiction of all actions or special proceedings brought against the mayor, aldermen, and commonalty. This was a re-enactment of the provision of the act of 1860, to which I have referred. Section 1208 of the consolidation act made especial provision for the jurisdiction of the Marine Court, and extended it in certain respects; but there was neither expressly nor impliedly any reference to actions against the city. In 1883 the Marine Court received its present name of the ‘City Court of the City of New York.’
In 1897, when the Greater New York charter was enacted (Laws 1897, p. 480, c. 378) by section 1345 thereof, the City Court and its justices were expressly continued with ‘the same powers and jurisdiction as are now conferred upon them by law.’ Section 262 of the charter gave to the Supreme Court, with which the Common Pleas and Superior Courts had been consolidated, ‘exclusive jurisdiction over all actions or special proceedings wherein the city of New York is made a party defendant,’ and the section also provided that ‘all such actions shall be tried in that county wholly or partly embraced within the city of New York in which the cause of action arose, or in the county of New York, subject to the power of the court to change the place of trial,’ etc. At the time of the enactment of the Greater New York charter it is clear that the jurisdiction of the City Court, as continued, was only such as had been conferred by the provisions of the consolidation act of 1882, and, as we have seen, that could not extend to actions against the city, for jurisdiction of such belonged exclusively to the Supreme, Common Pleas, and Superior Courts. In 1901 the charter was amended (Laws 1901, p. 574, c. 466), and by section 1345 of the amending act the City Court and its justices were continued with ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rosa v. Cantrell, 81-1487
... ... Ed CANTRELL, Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant and ... Matt BIDER, James Callas, and the City of Rock Springs, Defendants-Appellees ... Nos. 81-1487, 81-1504 ... United States Court of ... ; it has been adopted by a good many states, including Wyoming, but also including New York. It is an equitable provision which seeks to give a litigant who has brought the suit in due time ... ...
-
Hoke, v. Motel 6 Jackson, 05-132.
... ... ; it has been adopted by a good many states, including Wyoming, but also including New York. It is an equitable provision which seeks to give a litigant who has brought the suit in due time ... The philosophy behind it is very well enunciated in Gaines v. City of New York, 215 N.Y. 533, 109 N.E. 594 (1915). The statute is very similar to that which is ... ...
-
Roth v. Northern Assur. Co.
... ... Pitcairn was an action under the Federal Employers' Liability Act which was instituted in the city court of Granite City to recover for injuries alleged to have been sustained in the city of ... appropriate to determination of the present question are those stated by the New York Court of Appeals in Gaines v. City of New York, 215 N.Y. 533, 109 N.E. 594, L.R.A.1917C, 203. That ... ...
-
Gaines v. City of New York
...year expired, but brought it in the City Court. That court has no jurisdiction of actions against the city of New York. O'Connor v. City of New York, 191 N.Y. 238, 83 N.E. 979. The earlier action, when it came on for trial in November, 1911, was dismissed upon that ground. The plaintiff ask......