Hyperlawhypertext legal database Bell v. Karsch Brewing Co. 101 N.Y.S. 803

← Cases

Bell v. Karsch Brewing Co.

101 N.Y.S. 803 Court N.Y. App. Term Decision date 1906-12-11 English

Delivered by GILDERSLEEVE, J.

Contents

Majority

p. 803
BELL et al. v. KARSCH BREWING CO. et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
December 11, 1906.)

Headnote

Landlord and Tenant—Recovery of.Possession—Summary Proceedings— Petition.
In a summary proceeding the petition alleged “that said petitioners are the landlords of the premises hereinafter described.” Held, that this is not a sufficient allegation of the interest of petitioners, under Code Civ. Proc. § 2235, providing that the petition shall describe the interest of the petitioner, stating the facts which authorize the application.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 32, Landlord and Tenant, §§ 1303, 1304.]
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Tenth District.
Summary proceeding by Edward A. Bell and Hattie B. Karsch against the Karsch Brewing Company and George Kahrmann for the recovery of possession of real property. From a final order in favor of plaintiffs, defendants appeal. Reversed.
Argued before GILDERSLEEVE, FITZGERALD, and DAVIS, JJ.
James I. Moore, for appellants.
Gifford & Cox, for respondents.

This is a summary proceeding. The petition alleged “that said petitioners are the landlords of the premises hereinafter described.” This was the only allegation therein setting forth or attempting to set forth the interest of the petitioners in said premises as required by section 2235 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This statement has repeatedly been held to be insufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the court to entertain these proceedings. Ferber v. Apfel (Sup.) 99 Supp. 215, and cases there cited. Prompt objection to the form of the petition was made by the defendant herein, but without avail, and a final order in the landlord’s favor was made. It must be reversed.

Final order reversed, with costs to appellant. All concur. ,