Jamgochian v. Chankalian

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Jamgochian v. Chankalian

127 N.Y.S. 1019

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMarch 13, 1911

StatusPublished

This text of 127 N.Y.S. 1019 (Jamgochian v. Chankalian) 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

Jamgochian v. Chankalian, 127 N.Y.S. 1019 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

PAGE, J.

The motion was submitted July 19, 1910. The decision was not handed down till October 11, 1910. Under the provisions of section 230, Municipal Court Act (Laws 1902, c. 580), as amended to take effect September 1, 1910 (Laws 1910, c. 401), the justice had but 14 days from the latter date in which to render a decision unless an extension of time as therein provided was given. The record contains no such extension. The provisions of section 230 as amended are applicable to this motion (Lazarus v. M. E. R. R. Co., 145 N. Y. 581, 40 N. E. 240), and the justice, having failed to act within the required time, lost jurisdiction (Van Valis v. Charcona, 40 Misc. Rep. 226, 81 N. Y. Supp. 630). The order appealed from is therefore void. An examination of the record also discloses that upon the merits the application should not have been granted.

The order appealed from is reversed, and the judgment reinstated, with costs to appellant. All concur.

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

PAGE, J.

The motion was submitted July 19, 1910. The decision was not handed down till October 11, 1910. Under the provisions of section 230, Municipal Court Act (Laws 1902, c. 580), as amended to take effect September 1, 1910 (Laws 1910, c. 401), the justice had but 14 days from the latter date in which to render a decision unless an extension of time as therein provided was given. The record contains no such extension. The provisions of section 230 as amended are applicable to this motion (Lazarus v. M. E. R. R. Co., 145 N. Y. 581, 40 N. E. 240), and the justice, having failed to act within the required time, lost jurisdiction (Van Valis v. Charcona, 40 Misc. Rep. 226, 81 N. Y. Supp. 630). The order appealed from is therefore void. An examination of the record also discloses that upon the merits the application should not have been granted.

The order appealed from is reversed, and the judgment reinstated, with costs to appellant. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 N.Y.S. 1019, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jamgochian-v-chankalian-nyappterm-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack