Fuller v. Galeota

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fuller v. Galeota

268 A.D. 949, 51 N.Y.S.2d 101, 1944 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4361

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 1, 1944

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 268 A.D. 949 (Fuller v. Galeota) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fuller v. Galeota, 268 A.D. 949, 51 N.Y.S.2d 101, 1944 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4361 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment reversed on the law, without costs of this appeal to either party, and matter remitted to the Trial Term to proceed in accordance with the memorandum. Memorandum: This action was tried before the court without a jury. After the evidence was closed the court stated on the record: “ I am going to give the plaintiff judgment in the sum of $852.75.” [950]*950There was no decision either oral or in writing stating the facts which the court deemed essential to authorize the entry of judgment as required by section 440 of the Civil Practice Act. The judgment was prematurely entered. (Hall v. Beston, 13 App. Div. 116; Dobbs v. Brinlcerhoff, 98 App. Div. 258.) Under the peculiar facts in this cáse we reverse the judgment and remit the matter to the Trial Term to make a decision and enter a proper judgment in accordance with the statute. (Smith v. Geiger, 202 N. Y. 306; Ventimiglia v. Eichner, 213 N. Y. 147; Herder v. Clifford, 225 App. Div. 780; Sautter v. Erich, 227 App. Div. 760.) All concur. (The judgment is for plaintiff in an action to recover welfare money.) Present — Cunningham, P. J., Dowling, Harris, McCurn and Larkin, JJ.

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

Judgment reversed on the law, without costs of this appeal to either party, and matter remitted to the Trial Term to proceed in accordance with the memorandum. Memorandum: This action was tried before the court without a jury. After the evidence was closed the court stated on the record: “ I am going to give the plaintiff judgment in the sum of $852.75.” [950]*950There was no decision either oral or in writing stating the facts which the court deemed essential to authorize the entry of judgment as required by section 440 of the Civil Practice Act. The judgment was prematurely entered. (Hall v. Beston, 13 App. Div. 116; Dobbs v. Brinlcerhoff, 98 App. Div. 258.) Under the peculiar facts in this cáse we reverse the judgment and remit the matter to the Trial Term to make a decision and enter a proper judgment in accordance with the statute. (Smith v. Geiger, 202 N. Y. 306; Ventimiglia v. Eichner, 213 N. Y. 147; Herder v. Clifford, 225 App. Div. 780; Sautter v. Erich, 227 App. Div. 760.) All concur. (The judgment is for plaintiff in an action to recover welfare money.) Present — Cunningham, P. J., Dowling, Harris, McCurn and Larkin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 A.D. 949, 51 N.Y.S.2d 101, 1944 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4361, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fuller-v-galeota-nyappdiv-1944.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack