Goldman v. Messing
This text of 48 Misc. 651 (Goldman v. Messing) 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.
Opinion
We find nothing in the case but a conflict of evidence which the justice resolved in defendant’s favor. We cannot say that he should have believed plaintiff’s witnesses, rather than those called by defendant. The judgment awards defendant twenty dollars costs. No verified pleading or written notice of appearance was filed. Consequently, under section 332 of the Municipal Court Act, the defendant was not entitled to costs. Rice v. Hogan, 45 Misc. Rep. 400.
The judgment must be modified by striking out the award of costs and, as so modified, affirmed with costs; the award of costs upon appeal being made because the defect in the [652]*652judgment is one which might have been, and probably would have been, corrected in the court below, if a proper application to that effect had been made.
Present: Scott, Gildersleeve and MacLean, JJ.
Judgment modified, and as so modified, affirmed, with' costs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
48 Misc. 651, 96 N.Y.S. 171, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldman-v-messing-nyappterm-1905.