Goldstein v. Guedalia

New York Supreme Court

Goldstein v. Guedalia

58 N.Y.S. 167

DecidedMay 19, 1899

StatusPublished

This text of 58 N.Y.S. 167 (Goldstein v. Guedalia) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Goldstein v. Guedalia, 58 N.Y.S. 167 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

PER OURIAM.

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. No 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 taken during the progress of the trial. Thompson v. Schwartz (March, 1899) 57 N. Y. Supp. 416; Van Vleck v. Ballou (May, 1899), 58 N. Y. Supp. 125. • The judgment therefore must be affirmed, with costs.

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

PER OURIAM.

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. No 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 taken during the progress of the trial. Thompson v. Schwartz (March, 1899) 57 N. Y. Supp. 416; Van Vleck v. Ballou (May, 1899), 58 N. Y. Supp. 125. • The judgment therefore must be affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 N.Y.S. 167, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldstein-v-guedalia-nysupct-1899.