Companelli v. Romono

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Companelli v. Romono

140 Misc. 72

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided March 15, 1930·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appeal dismissed, with ten dollars costs. The summons was “ substantially ” in the form prescribed by section 20 of the Municipal Court Code. The mistake in the number of the district was a mere irregularity. (Krulewitch v. Pecarsky, 159 N. Y. Supp. 827.) The address of the clerk having been correct, the defendant could not have been misled. The judgment entered upon service of the summons was, therefore, valid, and the order denying the motion to vacate it is not appealable. (Mun. Ct. Code, § 154.)

All concur; present, Cropsey, MacCrate and Lewis, JJ.

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

Per Curiam.

Appeal dismissed, with ten dollars costs. The summons was “ substantially ” in the form prescribed by section 20 of the Municipal Court Code. The mistake in the number of the district was a mere irregularity. (Krulewitch v. Pecarsky, 159 N. Y. Supp. 827.) The address of the clerk having been correct, the defendant could not have been misled. The judgment entered upon service of the summons was, therefore, valid, and the order denying the motion to vacate it is not appealable. (Mun. Ct. Code, § 154.)

All concur; present, Cropsey, MacCrate and Lewis, JJ.

Companelli v. Romono, 140 Misc. 72 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

140 Misc. 72 (Companelli v. Romono) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related