Majority
p. 1015(78 Misc. Rep. 588.) CUKOR v. ROTHMAN. (City Court of New York, Special Term. December, 1912.)
Headnote
•Coubts (§ 188[1] )—City Coubts—Jubisdiction—Accounting.Where an agreement, whether interpreted as one of partnership or for the division of profits of the business in which the parties have embarked, renders an accounting necessary to determine their rights, the City Court of the City of New York has no jurisdiction of the cause of action.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Courts, Cent. Dig. §§ 437-468; Dec. Dig. § 188. *1
Action by Victor P. Cukor against Henry A. Rothman. On mo-tion for judgment on the pleadings.
Granted.
Henry Kuntz, of New York City, for plaintiff.
Abraham Landan, of New York City, for defendant.
Pursuant to the stipulation made by counsel in open •court, I shall consider this motion as one for judgment on the pleadings, instead of a motion to compel a reply to the first defense in the .answer. The agreement set forth in extenso in the answer is conced■edly the agreement upon which plaintiff predicates his cause of action, and, whether that agreement be interpreted to be a partnership agreement between the parties to this action or an agreement for a
p. 1016
division of the profits of the business in which they embarked, the fact, nevertheless, remains that an accounting is absolutely necessary to determine their respective' rights' therein. In view of such ques-tion necessarily arising, this court has no jurisdiction of the cause of' action, and I therefore grant the motion of defendant for judgment on the pleadings, not upon the merits, but for want of jurisdiction in the court to try the issues herein involved.
Motion granted.