Riccardi v. Rogosin

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Riccardi v. Rogosin

131 Misc. 46, 225 N.Y.S. 657, 1927 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1244

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedDecember 20, 1927

StatusPublished

This text of 131 Misc. 46 (Riccardi v. Rogosin) 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

Riccardi v. Rogosin, 131 Misc. 46, 225 N.Y.S. 657, 1927 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1244 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Although there seems to be no precedent for the motion in precisely the form in which it is made, no objection apparently has been taken either below or here to its mere form. It is substantially a motion made to facilitate the proper settlement of the case. Defendants claim, and there is no contradiction, that some ten pages of the minutes containing colloquy between the trial court and defendants’ counsel have been omitted and that they include remarks by the court which defendants’ counsel consider prejudicial and which must, in pursuance of his duty to his client, be submitted to the appellate court on the appeal. There is no denial, either, of the fact that these remarks had been taken down by the stenographer. The appropriate provisions of the Judiciary Law entitle appellants to the relief which they have asked.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs.

All concur; present, Bijur, Levy and Crain, JJ.

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

Per Curiam.

Although there seems to be no precedent for the motion in precisely the form in which it is made, no objection apparently has been taken either below or here to its mere form. It is substantially a motion made to facilitate the proper settlement of the case. Defendants claim, and there is no contradiction, that some ten pages of the minutes containing colloquy between the trial court and defendants’ counsel have been omitted and that they include remarks by the court which defendants’ counsel consider prejudicial and which must, in pursuance of his duty to his client, be submitted to the appellate court on the appeal. There is no denial, either, of the fact that these remarks had been taken down by the stenographer. The appropriate provisions of the Judiciary Law entitle appellants to the relief which they have asked.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs.

All concur; present, Bijur, Levy and Crain, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 Misc. 46, 225 N.Y.S. 657, 1927 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1244, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/riccardi-v-rogosin-nyappterm-1927.