Mendelsohn v. Rosenberg

7 N.E.2d 274, 273 N.Y. 385, 1937 N.Y. LEXIS 1217
New York Court of Appeals·Decided March 23, 1937·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Although this court allowed the appeal in this cause, it has been called to our attention that the *386 order is not appealable. (Matter of Steinman v. Conlon, 208 N. Y. 198; Hand v. Ortschreib Building Corp., 254 N. Y. 15. See Jewelers’ Mercantile Agency v. Jewelers’ Weekly Pub. Co., 155 N. Y. 241.) We, therefore, do not pass on the merits but reserve the question until properly before us for review.

The appeal should be dismissed, with costs.

Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ., concur.

Appeal dismissed.

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

Mendelsohn v. Rosenberg, 7 N.E.2d 274, 273 N.Y. 385, 1937 N.Y. LEXIS 1217 (N.Y. 1937).

7 N.E.2d 274 (Mendelsohn v. Rosenberg) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In re Ferrell
172 A.2d 555 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1961)