Marjulies v. Goldstein

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Marjulies v. Goldstein

84 N.Y.S. 475

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 6, 1903

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 84 N.Y.S. 475 (Marjulies v. Goldstein) 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

Marjulies v. Goldstein, 84 N.Y.S. 475 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The papers upon which the court acted when denying the motion for resettlement, as recited in the order, present no dispute of fact as to the condition of the record, and it thus appears that the admission as to the date of service of the answer was made as claimed at the trial, and that the statements of counsel to the jury deemed to be prejudicial were actually made. In the absence of any suggestion that the denial was.based upon the justice’s recollection of the facts at the trial, the matter may be reviewed upon the papers before him (Zimmer v. R. R. Co., 28 App. Div. 504, 51 N. Y. Supp. 247); and the materiality of the matter stricken out, for the purposes of an appeal, is sufficiently shown to justify the motion for resettlement. The cases referred to by the respondent had to do with a dispute of fact as to the record before the justice, or with a failure to present, on appeal from the order, the papers upon which he acted.

Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with $10 costs. All concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The papers upon which the court acted when denying the motion for resettlement, as recited in the order, present no dispute of fact as to the condition of the record, and it thus appears that the admission as to the date of service of the answer was made as claimed at the trial, and that the statements of counsel to the jury deemed to be prejudicial were actually made. In the absence of any suggestion that the denial was.based upon the justice’s recollection of the facts at the trial, the matter may be reviewed upon the papers before him (Zimmer v. R. R. Co., 28 App. Div. 504, 51 N. Y. Supp. 247); and the materiality of the matter stricken out, for the purposes of an appeal, is sufficiently shown to justify the motion for resettlement. The cases referred to by the respondent had to do with a dispute of fact as to the record before the justice, or with a failure to present, on appeal from the order, the papers upon which he acted.

Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with $10 costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 N.Y.S. 475, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marjulies-v-goldstein-nyappterm-1903.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack