Levy v. Gerzog

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Levy v. Gerzog

126 Misc. 585, 214 N.Y.S. 59, 1926 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 593

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedFebruary 10, 1926

StatusPublished

This text of 126 Misc. 585 (Levy v. Gerzog) 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

Levy v. Gerzog, 126 Misc. 585, 214 N.Y.S. 59, 1926 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 593 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The order made by Mr. Justice Hoyer in the prior, second, action for the January rent seems to have been made on the theory that the judgment in the first action for the December rent, affirmed by this court, was res adjudicata in the second action. As the judgment in the first action was affirmed solely on the ground that the rent had become due prior to the alleged surrender there was no basis for such a finding. Further, the order of Mr. Justice Hoyer was not an appealable one, and under the circumstances such order does not prevent a consideration of the merits in this action. (Dwight v. St. John, 25 N. Y. 203; Riggs v. Pursell, 74 id. 370.)

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with thirty dollars costs to the appellants to abide the event.

All concur; present, Bijur, Delehanty and Wagner, JJ.

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

Per Curiam.

The order made by Mr. Justice Hoyer in the prior, second, action for the January rent seems to have been made on the theory that the judgment in the first action for the December rent, affirmed by this court, was res adjudicata in the second action. As the judgment in the first action was affirmed solely on the ground that the rent had become due prior to the alleged surrender there was no basis for such a finding. Further, the order of Mr. Justice Hoyer was not an appealable one, and under the circumstances such order does not prevent a consideration of the merits in this action. (Dwight v. St. John, 25 N. Y. 203; Riggs v. Pursell, 74 id. 370.)

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with thirty dollars costs to the appellants to abide the event.

All concur; present, Bijur, Delehanty and Wagner, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 Misc. 585, 214 N.Y.S. 59, 1926 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 593, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/levy-v-gerzog-nyappterm-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack