Brown v. Schneider

New York Court of Appeals

Brown v. Schneider

258 N.E.2d 86, 26 N.Y.2d 839, 309 N.Y.S.2d 588, 1970 N.Y. LEXIS 1498

DecidedFebruary 26, 1970

StatusPublished

This text of 258 N.E.2d 86 (Brown v. Schneider) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brown v. Schneider, 258 N.E.2d 86, 26 N.Y.2d 839, 309 N.Y.S.2d 588, 1970 N.Y. LEXIS 1498 (N.Y. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion dismissed, with $10 costs and necessary printing disbursements, in the following memorandum: The motion for leave to appeal should be dismissed, upon the ground that there is no direct appeal by leave of court from the order (denominated a judgment) sought to be appealed from (cf. CPLE 5602, subd. [a]). Moreover, an appeal as of right does not lie because there is involved no challenge of a statute on constitutional grounds, nor does the order (denominated a judgment) sought to be appealed from finally determiné an action within the meaning of the Constitution (CPLE 5601, subd. [b], par. 2). If in fact there was an appeal perfected to the Appellate Division from the order of the Supreme Court denying the motion for a new trial (denominated a motion for a mistrial), then the Appellate Division had power, in the sense of jurisdiction over the litigant, to entertain the appeal (CPLE 5701, subd. [a], par. 2, cl. [iii] ; see, also, 7 Weinstein-Eorn-Miller, N. Y. Civ. Prac., par. 5701.12). [See 25 N Y 2d.903.]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Motion dismissed, with $10 costs and necessary printing disbursements, in the following memorandum: The motion for leave to appeal should be dismissed, upon the ground that there is no direct appeal by leave of court from the order (denominated a judgment) sought to be appealed from (cf. CPLE 5602, subd. [a]). Moreover, an appeal as of right does not lie because there is involved no challenge of a statute on constitutional grounds, nor does the order (denominated a judgment) sought to be appealed from finally determiné an action within the meaning of the Constitution (CPLE 5601, subd. [b], par. 2). If in fact there was an appeal perfected to the Appellate Division from the order of the Supreme Court denying the motion for a new trial (denominated a motion for a mistrial), then the Appellate Division had power, in the sense of jurisdiction over the litigant, to entertain the appeal (CPLE 5701, subd. [a], par. 2, cl. [iii] ; see, also, 7 Weinstein-Eorn-Miller, N. Y. Civ. Prac., par. 5701.12). [See 25 N Y 2d.903.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

258 N.E.2d 86, 26 N.Y.2d 839, 309 N.Y.S.2d 588, 1970 N.Y. LEXIS 1498, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-schneider-ny-1970.