Midtown Plottage Corp. v. Sullivan

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Midtown Plottage Corp. v. Sullivan

131 Misc. 473, 227 N.Y.S. 357, 1928 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 733

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided February 16, 1928·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Manifestly, in line with our decision in Godwin v. Hauer (N. Y. L. J. Feb. 8, 1924), where under the 1923 amendment to section 125 of the Municipal Court Code the attorney for the successful party refuses to prepare the judgment, the opposing attorney or the clerk, under direction of the court, may prepare the judgment.

[474] As none of the orders appealed from are appealable as of course, and no permission to appeal appears in the papers, the appeals must be dismissed.

Appeals dismissed.

All concur; present, Delehanty, Lydon and Levy, JJ.

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

Per Curiam.

Manifestly, in line with our decision in Godwin v. Hauer (N. Y. L. J. Feb. 8, 1924), where under the 1923 amendment to section 125 of the Municipal Court Code the attorney for the successful party refuses to prepare the judgment, the opposing attorney or the clerk, under direction of the court, may prepare the judgment.

[474] As none of the orders appealed from are appealable as of course, and no permission to appeal appears in the papers, the appeals must be dismissed.

Appeals dismissed.

All concur; present, Delehanty, Lydon and Levy, JJ.

Midtown Plottage Corp. v. Sullivan, 131 Misc. 473, 227 N.Y.S. 357, 1928 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 733 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

131 Misc. 473 (Midtown Plottage Corp. v. Sullivan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related