Kriegelman v. Ariewitz

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Kriegelman v. Ariewitz

155 N.Y.S. 355

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 3, 1915

StatusPublished

This text of 155 N.Y.S. 355 (Kriegelman v. Ariewitz) 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

Kriegelman v. Ariewitz, 155 N.Y.S. 355 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

PAGE, J.

The summons and complaint were entitled as Abraham Jaronowitz, defendant. Abraham Ariewitz was served, and appeared by attorney and answered. The caption of the answer was “Aaron Kriegelman, Plaintiff, against Abraham Ariewitz, Sued Herein as Abraham Jaronowitz.” When the case was tried, the defendant’s attorney cross-examined the plaintiff and summed up on behalf of Ariewitz. Plaintiff obtained judgment, which was erroneously entered as against Abraham Jaronowitz. Thereafter motion was made to correct the judgment, which was denied. There can be no question but that Ariewitz was the proper party, as he himself has stated that he was the defendant, sued by a misnomer. -Such a mistake should be corrected, in the furtherance of justice. C. C. P. § 723, and section 3347, subd. 6.

The order will therefore be reversed, with $10 costs, and the motion granted. All concur.

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

PAGE, J.

The summons and complaint were entitled as Abraham Jaronowitz, defendant. Abraham Ariewitz was served, and appeared by attorney and answered. The caption of the answer was “Aaron Kriegelman, Plaintiff, against Abraham Ariewitz, Sued Herein as Abraham Jaronowitz.” When the case was tried, the defendant’s attorney cross-examined the plaintiff and summed up on behalf of Ariewitz. Plaintiff obtained judgment, which was erroneously entered as against Abraham Jaronowitz. Thereafter motion was made to correct the judgment, which was denied. There can be no question but that Ariewitz was the proper party, as he himself has stated that he was the defendant, sued by a misnomer. -Such a mistake should be corrected, in the furtherance of justice. C. C. P. § 723, and section 3347, subd. 6.

The order will therefore be reversed, with $10 costs, and the motion granted. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 N.Y.S. 355, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kriegelman-v-ariewitz-nyappterm-1915.