Judy's Confections, Inc. v. A. & A. Construction Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Judy's Confections, Inc. v. A. & A. Construction Corp.

275 A.D.2d 674

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

DecidedFebruary 14, 1949

StatusPublished

This text of 275 A.D.2d 674 (Judy's Confections, Inc. v. A. & A. Construction Corp.) 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

Judy's Confections, Inc. v. A. & A. Construction Corp., 275 A.D.2d 674 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, insofar as appealed from, unanimously reversed on the law, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, without costs, to the extent that the findings of fact are resettled by striking therefrom the findings numbered “ Seventh ” and “ Eleventh ”, which are immaterial to the issues presented by the pleadings, and which decided questions not at issue. (Cf. Loeb v. Clement, 243 App. Div. 834.) The trial court had power, subsequent to judgment, to amend its decision by striking therefrom such findings, since the amendment would not have been inconsistent with, nor would it affect the validity of, any findings or conclusions on which the judgment rested. (S. J. E. Bldg. Corp. v. Matt O. M. Constr. Co., 265 N. Y. 282, 286; Rosen v. Weinstein, 243 App Div. 726.) Appellant’s motion for such relief was improperly denied. Present — Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Adel, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ.

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

Order, insofar as appealed from, unanimously reversed on the law, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, without costs, to the extent that the findings of fact are resettled by striking therefrom the findings numbered “ Seventh ” and “ Eleventh ”, which are immaterial to the issues presented by the pleadings, and which decided questions not at issue. (Cf. Loeb v. Clement, 243 App. Div. 834.) The trial court had power, subsequent to judgment, to amend its decision by striking therefrom such findings, since the amendment would not have been inconsistent with, nor would it affect the validity of, any findings or conclusions on which the judgment rested. (S. J. E. Bldg. Corp. v. Matt O. M. Constr. Co., 265 N. Y. 282, 286; Rosen v. Weinstein, 243 App Div. 726.) Appellant’s motion for such relief was improperly denied. Present — Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Adel, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 674, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/judys-confections-inc-v-a-a-construction-corp-nyappdiv-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack