Brambir v. Seifert
This text of 127 Misc. 603 (Brambir v. Seifert) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
We cannot assume that the 1924 amendment of section 1425 of the Civil Practice Act (added by Laws of 1921, chap. 199, as amd. by Laws of 1924, chap. 514), providing for judgment for rent, was intended, contrary to well-established principles, to warrant the entry of judgment for rent against a tenant not personally served with the precept or who had not appeared in the proceeding. .
Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs.
All concur; present, Bijur, O’Malley and Levy, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
127 Misc. 603, 217 N.Y.S. 127, 1926 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1061, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brambir-v-seifert-nyappterm-1926.