Mead v. Friedberg

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Mead v. Friedberg

29 Misc. 326, 60 N.Y.S. 1143

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedOctober 15, 1899

StatusPublished

This text of 29 Misc. 326 (Mead v. Friedberg) 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

Mead v. Friedberg, 29 Misc. 326, 60 N.Y.S. 1143 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

Fbeedman, P. J.

At the close of the plaintiff’s case the defendant moved for a dismissal of the complaint upon various grounds, and, among others, upon the ground that it did not appear that the court had jurisdiction of'the action. The trial judge dismissed the complaint upon the ground that the plaintiff was not the real party in interest. It is not necessary to determine whether the proper reason was assigned for granting the motion. As there was no proof in the case that the defendant is a resident within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, the dismissal was proper, irrespective of the particular reason assigned, especially as the plaintiff did not ask for leave to supply the defect in the proof.

The judgment must, therefore, be treated as one dismissing plaintiff’s complaint for insufficiency of proof, and, as such, it should be affirmed.

Leventbitt and MacLean, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

Fbeedman, P. J.

At the close of the plaintiff’s case the defendant moved for a dismissal of the complaint upon various grounds, and, among others, upon the ground that it did not appear that the court had jurisdiction of'the action. The trial judge dismissed the complaint upon the ground that the plaintiff was not the real party in interest. It is not necessary to determine whether the proper reason was assigned for granting the motion. As there was no proof in the case that the defendant is a resident within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, the dismissal was proper, irrespective of the particular reason assigned, especially as the plaintiff did not ask for leave to supply the defect in the proof.

The judgment must, therefore, be treated as one dismissing plaintiff’s complaint for insufficiency of proof, and, as such, it should be affirmed.

Leventbitt and MacLean, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 Misc. 326, 60 N.Y.S. 1143, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mead-v-friedberg-nyappterm-1899.