Ciccolini v. Vocafilm Corp. of America

New York Court of Appeals

Ciccolini v. Vocafilm Corp. of America

171 N.E. 794, 253 N.Y. 588, 1930 N.Y. LEXIS 958

New York Court of Appeals·Decided May 6, 1930·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The Appellate Division had authority to reverse the judgment as a matter of discretion. It did not exercise that power, however, but reversed as a matter of law. No error of law was involved. We are, therefore, compelled to reverse. The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the judgment of the Trial Term affirmed, with costs in this court and in the Appellate Division.

Cardozo, Ch. J. Pound, Crane, Lehman, Kellogg, O’Brien and Hubbs, JJ., concur.

Ordered accordingly.

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

Per Curiam.

The Appellate Division had authority to reverse the judgment as a matter of discretion. It did not exercise that power, however, but reversed as a matter of law. No error of law was involved. We are, therefore, compelled to reverse. The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the judgment of the Trial Term affirmed, with costs in this court and in the Appellate Division.

Cardozo, Ch. J. Pound, Crane, Lehman, Kellogg, O’Brien and Hubbs, JJ., concur.

Ordered accordingly.

Ciccolini v. Vocafilm Corp. of America, 171 N.E. 794, 253 N.Y. 588, 1930 N.Y. LEXIS 958 (N.Y. 1930).

Pincite

171 N.E. 794 (Ciccolini v. Vocafilm Corp. of America) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related