Goldstein v. Guedalia

40 A.D. 451
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 15, 1899·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The decision which was filed in this case contained no separate statement of facts and conclusions of law, but was a short decision, as permitted by section 1022 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Ho exceptions were filed to it, as required by that section. We have recently held that where such is the case the court has no power to review either the decision of the court or any exceptions táken during the progress of the trial. (Thompson v. Schwartz, 39 App. Div. 658; Van Vleck v. Ballou, post, p. 489.)

The judgment, therefore, must be affirmed, with costs.

' Present—Van Brunt, P. J., Barrett, Rumsey, Patterson and O’Brien, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

Goldstein v. Guedalia, 40 A.D. 451 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1899).

40 A.D. 451 (Goldstein v. Guedalia) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

National Protective Ass'n of Steam Fitters & Helpers v. Cumming
53 A.D. 227 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1900)