
    (34 Misc. Rep. 526.)
    CHASE v. HERR.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    April 16, 1901.)
    Courts—New York City Municipal Court—Jurisdiction—Fraud.
    Greater New York Charter, §' 1364, subd. 14, gives the municipal court jurisdiction in cases over which the district courts bad jurisdiction; and by Code Civ. Proc. § 3215, the provisions of section 2862, giving justices of the peace jurisdiction of actions for “injury to property,” were made applicable to district courts. Held, that since Code Civ. Proc. g 3343, subd. 10, defining “an injury to property” to be “an actionable act, whereby the estate of another is lessened, other than a personal injury, or the breach of a contract,” covers actions for damages for fraud, and deceit, such actions are within the jurisdiction of the municipal court.
    Appeal from municipal court of city of New York, Eleventh district.
    Action by Frank 0. Chase against Franklin B. Herr. From a judgment dismissing the complaint, plaintiff appeals.
    Reversed.
    Argued before BISCHOFF, P. J., and CLARKE and LEVEN-TRITT, JJ.
    Pierre M. Browne, for appellant.
    Sidney H. Stewart, for respondent.
   BISCHOFF, P. J.

The ground for the dismissal of the action appears from the return to be that the municipal court had no jurisdiction of an action for fraud and deceit. Section 1364 of the charter (subdivision 14) gives the municipal court jurisdiction in cases over which the district courts bad jurisdiction, and by section 3215 of the Code the provisions of section 2862 relative to the jurisdiction of justices’ courts were made applicable to the district courts. An action for an injury to property, as defined in section 3343, subd. 10, of the Code, is thus within the jurisdiction of the municipal court (Code, § 2862, subd. 2); and the Code definition of an injury to property—“an actionable act, whereby the estate of another is lessened, other than a personal injury, or the breach of a contract”—clearly covers an action for damages for deceit. See Farrington v. Bullard, 40 Barb. 512. Upon examination of the pleadings, we cannot agree with counsel for the respondent that the complaint might have been dismissed for insufficiency, and the dismissal upon the express ground of jurisdiction was erroneous.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. All concur.  