Liberman v. AM. LUMBERMANS MUT. CAS. CO.
| Citation | 203 Misc. 816 |
| Parties | Milton Liberman, Plaintiff,<BR>v.<BR>American Lumbermans Mutual Casualty Co., Defendant. |
| Decision Date | 18 March 1953 |
| Court | New York District Court |
Benjamin H. Eisen and Jerome Margolies for plaintiff.
William C. Morris and John R. Curti for defendant.
In this action, brought in the Small Claims Part of the Municipal Court, the plaintiff, an executive of a large enterprise, was suing to recover the sum of $63.75 for damages to his new $5000 Cadillac. He claimed that the damage was caused by vandalism and, more specifically, by the acts of mischievous children. Payment was resisted by the defendant under the "Comprehensive" features of the insurance policy which expressly excluded damage to the vehicle from collision; it endeavored to show that the major portion of the damage was the result of a collision.
The plaintiff was represented by an attorney, and the defendant, of necessity, appeared by an attorney.
After the trial, which was far too long, and which included testimony of an expert who was called as a witness by the defendant, each side submitted a memorandum of law, and the court took under advisement a determination of the controversy.
On a careful review of the pertinent facts and a reading of the memoranda submitted, I am constrained to find for the plaintiff for the amount demanded by him.
This cause in the Small Claims Part, standing alone, would evoke no animadversion were it not for the evil it represents. Though it is unusual for a judge to write an extended opinion when deciding a matter in this part of the court, it has become necessary to do so. I am prompted by the fact that bringing such an action as this in the Small Claims Part is wholly at variance with the purpose and procedure of this part of the court, and, further, that such an action as this is not at all unusual but, on the contrary, is becoming common practice and one which works a grave injustice on the persons for whom the Small Claims Part was established.
By virtue of the authority found in chapter 598 of the Laws of 1934, and thereafter amended by increasing the monetary jurisdiction, there was created a Small Claims Part of the Municipal Court for a prompt and inexpensive determination of claims involving $100 or less.
Prior thereto, a great deal of sympathy had been aroused throughout the United States for the creation of a court whereby the indigent could repair for a quick and inexpensive disposition of their claims. The inability to dispense justice quickly and inexpensively in small causes, such as small debts for groceries or loans, claims for damage to items of wear, retention of personal property, wages and numerous miscellaneous items, occasioned much criticism. It was the legal aid organizations and other agencies throughout the country that were highly vocal in calling attention to the inequalities caused by the traditional method of administering justice, and they were instrumental in the creation of the Small Claims Courts. (Justice and the Poor, Reginald Heber Smith — Bulletin No. 13). The Bar had been slow to comprehend the task and was seemingly indifferent to the need.
Many years ago, Dean Pound pointed out that although the system of American jurisprudence had great merit as a means of arriving at the truth, it was a denial of justice in small causes because of the expenses for legal services. Of course, court costs were also a deterrent.
A system of adjusting small claims has been in existence in France for a long time. It is noteworthy because of the simple and summary procedure, and the absence of technical and complicated rules of evidence; and anyone who can easily show that another is indebted to him can obtain a judgment promptly. The English courts also have provision for quick disposition of "petty litigation".
Of course, the need for some method of adjusting small matters was also a problem for us in this country; and Elihu Root stated that there was no reason (Root: Addresses on Government and Citizenship, p. 231.)
Historically, small cases were first entrusted to the Justices of the Peace, and, undoubtedly, the rural inhabitant was well satisfied with this mode of dispensing justice, but this plan, when applied to large communities, failed woefully because these gentlemen, operating under a fee system, unsupervised, became so plaintiff-minded that was synonymous with "Judgment for the Plaintiff"; the influence of the collection agencies, installment houses, and the like, was then very unhealthy. Therefore, in the cities, the modern Municipal Court finally developed, with trained and capable judges, but, at the same time, there evolved rules of pleading, of procedure and of evidence and, of course, expense and delay. In short, the latter items became rock barnacles on the proper administration of small claims.
In 1913, the Kansas Small Claims Courts were created in Topeka, Leavenworth and Kansas City, and it is said that the law was drawn by the Attorney-General who had the insufficiency of the regular courts brought markedly to his attention by the fact that a washwoman in whom he was interested was owed $3 by a wealthy man who refused to pay her and whom she was unable to sue because of inability to pay the necessary counsel fees and costs. (Justice Tempered with Mercy, 112 Outlook 153 [1916].) The Kansas statute provided, and still provides, that the person appointed as judge must be sympathetically inclined to consider the situation of the poor, friendless and unfortunate and that before entertaining the suit, the plaintiff must appear personally before the judge and state his case orally, and if a cause does exist, the judge must summon the defendant orally, or by mail, or telephone and try the case considerately and summarily and give judgment and there is to be no assessment of costs against either party, and, further, no attorney-at-law or any other person than the plaintiff and the defendant shall concern himself or intermeddle in any manner whatsoever in the litigation in the small debtor's court. (Kan. Session L. 1913, ch. 170, Small Debtors Court, ch. 20, art. 13, General Statute of Kansas, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Simmons v. Trans Express Inc.
...and procedure ... be simple, informal and inexpensive, for the prompt determination of" small claims ( Liberman v. Am. Lumbermans Mut. Cas. Co. , 203 Misc. 816, 819, 120 N.Y.S.2d 43 [Civ. Ct., Queens County 1953] ). The purpose of the statutes that provide for small claims proceedings is, t......
-
Resnick v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.
...Part, justice must be administered without regard to procedural or evidentiary rules of law. See, Liberman v. American Lumbermans Mutual Casualty Co., 203 Misc. 816, 120 N.Y.S.2d 43 (1953). In 1978 the Jefferson County Court found in Johnson v. Timmerman, 92 Misc.2d 626, 401 N.Y.S.2d 149, t......
-
General Acc. Fire & Life Assur. Corp. v. Azar
...Ins. Co., 8 Misc.2d 269, 167 N.Y.S.2d 398, 402. That acts of mischievous children may be vandalism, see Liberman v. American Lumbermans Mut. Casualty Co., 203 Misc. 816, 120 N.Y.S.2d 43. In the present case the evidence, concisely stated, was that people were heard walking on the roof of th......
-
Hayden v. L.I.L.C.O.
...appearance of counsel and the tendency to prolong trials of small claims is to be discouraged. Liberman v. American Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co., 203 Misc. 816, 120 N.Y.S.2d 43 (1953). Under ordinary circumstances when a claimant commences a small claims action it is with the expectation......