Rubin v. Prudence Bonds Corp.

New York Court of Appeals

Rubin v. Prudence Bonds Corp.

78 N.E.2d 598, 297 N.Y. 250

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 18, 1948

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 78 N.E.2d 598 (Rubin v. Prudence Bonds Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rubin v. Prudence Bonds Corp., 78 N.E.2d 598, 297 N.Y. 250 (N.Y. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Questions of fact are presented by the record as to whether appellant improperly abandoned the case or was justifiably dismissed. Since the Appellate Division order fails to make the specifications required by section 602 of the Civil *252 Practice Act, we are compelled to presume that questions of fact were not considered and to “ treat" the Appellate Division order as being a determination on the law only.” (See People ex rel. Sheffield Farms Co., Inc., v. Lilly, 295 N. Y. 354, 356; see, also, Tufts v. Stolz, 297 N. Y. 673.) So regarded, the Appellate Division order cannot be sustained. The order is accordingly reversed, without costs, and the matter remitted to the Appellate Division “ for determination upon the questions of fact raised in that court ” (Civ. Prac. Act, § 606).

Loijghran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Thacher, Dye and Feed, JJ., concur.

Order reversed, etc.

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

Per Curiam.

Questions of fact are presented by the record as to whether appellant improperly abandoned the case or was justifiably dismissed. Since the Appellate Division order fails to make the specifications required by section 602 of the Civil *252 Practice Act, we are compelled to presume that questions of fact were not considered and to “ treat" the Appellate Division order as being a determination on the law only.” (See People ex rel. Sheffield Farms Co., Inc., v. Lilly, 295 N. Y. 354, 356; see, also, Tufts v. Stolz, 297 N. Y. 673.) So regarded, the Appellate Division order cannot be sustained. The order is accordingly reversed, without costs, and the matter remitted to the Appellate Division “ for determination upon the questions of fact raised in that court ” (Civ. Prac. Act, § 606).

Loijghran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Thacher, Dye and Feed, JJ., concur.

Order reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 N.E.2d 598, 297 N.Y. 250, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rubin-v-prudence-bonds-corp-ny-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack