Friedman v. Seward Park Housing Corp.
| Decision Date | 13 December 1995 |
| Citation | 639 N.Y.S.2d 648,167 Misc.2d 57 |
| Parties | William FRIEDMAN, Appellant, v. SEWARD PARK HOUSING CORP., Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Small Claims Part of the Civil Court, New York County, entered November 22, 1994 (Wilfred R. O'Connor, J.), granting defendant's motion to dismiss the action.
William Friedman, appellant pro se.
Finkelstein, Borah, Schwartz, Altschuler & Goldstein, P.C., New York City (Dawn M. Jimenez, of counsel), for respondent.
Before PARNESS, J.P., and McCOOE and FREEDMAN, JJ.
Order entered November 22, 1994 (Wilfred R. O'Connor, J.) reversed, without costs, defendant's motion to dismiss is denied, and the action is reinstated.
Plaintiff, a tenant shareholder in the defendant cooperative, sued in the Small Claims Part for "breach of agreement" in connection with defendant's alleged failure to paint his apartment. Defendant's CPLR 3211(a)(7) dismissal motion was granted by Civil Court upon its finding that plaintiff had "... failed to put forth a prima facie case for breach of contract".
We reiterate the rule that pretrial motions to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action should rarely, if ever, be entertained in Small Claims Court (Ben-Aretz v. Neustein, N.Y.L.J., April 7, 1995, p. 25 c. 3 [App. Term 1st Dept.]; Weiner v. Tel Aviv Car and Limousine Service, 141 Misc.2d 339, 533 N.Y.S.2d 372). That court has adopted an "informal and simplified procedure" (CCA § 1804) for the inexpensive and expeditious resolution of minor claims. The informality and convenience of Small Claims practice is necessarily frustrated by requiring pro se litigants to respond to formal motion practice under the CPLR prior to the hearing of their case. "Substantial justice" will best be rendered in this unexceptionable matter by a prompt trial of the simple issues in dispute.
In reinstating the action, we express no view as to its ultimate outcome on the merits.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rackowski v. Araya
...(cf. Sarver v. Pace Univ., 5 Misc.3d 70, 71, 785 N.Y.S.2d 824 [App.Term., 1st Dept.2004] ; Friedman v. Seward Park Hous. Corp., 167 Misc.2d 57, 58, 639 N.Y.S.2d 648 [App.Term., 1st Dept.1995] ). In light of the fact that plaintiff, who appears pro se, has not yet had the opportunity to pres......
-
Kohavy v. Veritas Mgmt., LLC, 1155 SCB 2016.
...claims inexpensively and expeditiously. (See New York City Civil Court Act § 1804 [McKinney] ; see also Friedman v. Seward Park Hous. Corp ., 167 Misc.2d 57, 58 [1995] ). "The informality and convenience of small claims practice is necessarily frustrated by requiring pro se litigants to res......
-
Loakman v. Transport Workers
...in Small Claims Court" (Sarver v. Pace Univ., 5 Misc 3d 70, 71 [App Term, 1st Dept 2004], quoting Friedman v. Seward Park Hous. Corp., 167 Misc 2d 57, 58 [App Term, 1st Dept 1995]). Here, the full text of the claim, as reflected in the small claims case card, reads "$999.00 (WORK) LOSS OF T......
-
Hakala v. Travelers, 2009 NY Slip Op 50302(U) (N.Y. Civ. Ct. 2/25/2009)
...Car and Limousine Service, Ltd., 141 Misc 2d 339, 553 NYS2d 372 [NY City Civ. Ct. 1988] and Friedman v. Seward Park Housing Corp., 167 Misc 2d 57, 639 NYS2d 648 [Sup. Ct. App. Term 1st Dept. 1995]. Statutes of limitations have been held to provide an important public policy of "giving repos......