
    S. Perceval, Incorporated, Respondent, v. Ernest H. Fleischmann Company, Appellant.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
    November, 1912.)
    Municipal Courts—pleading — judgment — appeal.
    The answer of a defendant in a Municipal Court action need not be subscribed by its attorney.
    Where the Municipal Court refuses to permit a defendant to file its answer because not subscribed by its attorney and renders judgment in plaintiff’s favor, such judgment not being taken by default will be reversed on appeal.
    Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, borough of Manhattan, first district, rendered in favor of the plaintiff.
    Theodore Long, for appellant.
    H. Aplington, for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

The defendant appeared upon the return day of the summons and was given until the day following to file an answer. On that day the defendant appeared and its attorney offered an answer, verified by the vice-president of the defendant, which put in issue the allegations of the complaint but which it was claimed by the plaintiff was not subscribed by the defendant’s attorney prior to its being verified by the defendant’s officer. Upon this ground the court refused to permit the defendant to file its answer and gave a judgment in favor of the plaintiff from which judgment the defendant appeals.

The Municipal Court Act does not require that a pleading shall be subscribed by an attorney for a party and section 520 of the Code of Civil Procedure has no application to the Municipal Court. See Code Civ. Pro., § 3347, subd. 4. It was, therefore, error to refuse to-file the offered answer. The judgment entered against the defendant was not one taken by default; the defendant appeared and was only prevented from trying its case by reason of the refusal of the justice to permit the filing of the answer.

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant.

Present: Seabury, Guy and Bijur, JJ.

Judgment reversed.  