Ellenbogen v. Martin

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Ellenbogen v. Martin

99 N.Y.S. 463

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 1, 1906

StatusPublished

This text of 99 N.Y.S. 463 (Ellenbogen v. Martin) 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.

Bluebook

Ellenbogen v. Martin, 99 N.Y.S. 463 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, a marshal of the city of New York, brought this action against the defendants to recover $384.51 as damages for an alleged conversion of goods on which the plaintiff had levied as a marshal. The learned trial justice rendered a judgment for the defendants, but thereafter, on plaintiff’s motion, he vacated the judgment and ordered a new trial. Section 254 of the Municipal Court act (Laws 1902, p. 1563, c. 580) permits the justice to vacate a judgment rendered upon a trial by the court without a jury; but his action must be based upon some good ground, such, for instance, as a clear failure of the evidence to warrant the judgment. The evidence adduced upon this trial obviously necessitated the judgment rendered, and apparently the judgment was vacated because the learned trial justice believed that other evidence could be obtained which might establish the claim against the defendants.

Under the circumstances we think the judgment was vacated upon insufficient grounds, and that the order appealed from should be reversed, with costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, a marshal of the city of New York, brought this action against the defendants to recover $384.51 as damages for an alleged conversion of goods on which the plaintiff had levied as a marshal. The learned trial justice rendered a judgment for the defendants, but thereafter, on plaintiff’s motion, he vacated the judgment and ordered a new trial. Section 254 of the Municipal Court act (Laws 1902, p. 1563, c. 580) permits the justice to vacate a judgment rendered upon a trial by the court without a jury; but his action must be based upon some good ground, such, for instance, as a clear failure of the evidence to warrant the judgment. The evidence adduced upon this trial obviously necessitated the judgment rendered, and apparently the judgment was vacated because the learned trial justice believed that other evidence could be obtained which might establish the claim against the defendants.

Under the circumstances we think the judgment was vacated upon insufficient grounds, and that the order appealed from should be reversed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 N.Y.S. 463, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ellenbogen-v-martin-nyappterm-1906.