Ryan v. Brown

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Ryan v. Brown

51 Misc. 67, 99 N.Y.S. 868

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 15, 1906

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 51 Misc. 67 (Ryan v. Brown) 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

Ryan v. Brown, 51 Misc. 67, 99 N.Y.S. 868 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This case was tried and judgment rendered on January 16, 1906, dismissing the complaint with costs. On January 25, .1906, a motion was made to “ cor[68]*68rect ” the judgment. This motion came on to he heard on January twenty-ninth and an order was entered which pro-, vided “ that the judgment of dismissal rendered herein on the 16th day of January, 1906, in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiffs be and the same hereby is corrected by giving and rendering a judgment for the plaintiffs against the defendant for the sum of seventeen dollars .and forty cents with interest amounting to eighty-seven cents, amounting in all to eighteen dollars and twenty-seven cents as conceded due by the defendant on the trial hereof as appears by the stenographer’s minutes.” The only power given a justice of the Municipal Court to “ vacate, amend or modify any judgment ” rendered by him is conferred by section 254 of the Municipal Court Act. A motion to “ correct ” a judgment is simply another way of asking for an amendment or modification of a judgment. Even if a trial justice can, under the guise of a modification of a judgment, entirely change it from being in favor of a party to one against him, the motion for such purpose must be made within the statutory time (five days), which was not done in this case. Buchsbaum v. Feldman, 43 Misc. Rep. 85; Lissner v. Cohen, 49 id. 272.

The order is reversed, with costs.

Present: Gildersleeve, Leventritt and McCall, JJ.

Order reversed, with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

This case was tried and judgment rendered on January 16, 1906, dismissing the complaint with costs. On January 25, .1906, a motion was made to “ cor[68]*68rect ” the judgment. This motion came on to he heard on January twenty-ninth and an order was entered which pro-, vided “ that the judgment of dismissal rendered herein on the 16th day of January, 1906, in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiffs be and the same hereby is corrected by giving and rendering a judgment for the plaintiffs against the defendant for the sum of seventeen dollars .and forty cents with interest amounting to eighty-seven cents, amounting in all to eighteen dollars and twenty-seven cents as conceded due by the defendant on the trial hereof as appears by the stenographer’s minutes.” The only power given a justice of the Municipal Court to “ vacate, amend or modify any judgment ” rendered by him is conferred by section 254 of the Municipal Court Act. A motion to “ correct ” a judgment is simply another way of asking for an amendment or modification of a judgment. Even if a trial justice can, under the guise of a modification of a judgment, entirely change it from being in favor of a party to one against him, the motion for such purpose must be made within the statutory time (five days), which was not done in this case. Buchsbaum v. Feldman, 43 Misc. Rep. 85; Lissner v. Cohen, 49 id. 272.

The order is reversed, with costs.

Present: Gildersleeve, Leventritt and McCall, JJ.

Order reversed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 Misc. 67, 99 N.Y.S. 868, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ryan-v-brown-nyappterm-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack