Magee v. Rifkind
This text of 13 Misc. 2d 563 (Magee v. Rifkind) 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.
Opinion
The court did not specify the grounds on which the motion for a new trial was made and the grounds on which it was decided in the order vacating the judgment after trial and ordering a new trial; no opinion or memorandum was rendered in connection with the motion and such grounds are not indicated in any way. The order, therefore, fails to comply with the requirements of rule 224 of the Rules of Civil Practice (Morris v. Phillips, 48 N. Y. S. 2d 423).
The order should be reversed, with $10 costs, and judgment reinstated.
Concur — Hofstadter, Heoht and Aurelio, JJ.
Order reversed, etc.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
13 Misc. 2d 563, 153 N.Y.S.2d 731, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/magee-v-rifkind-nyappterm-1956.