Stoutenburgh v. Svecenski

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Stoutenburgh v. Svecenski

133 N.Y.S. 922

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMarch 8, 1912

StatusPublished

This text of 133 N.Y.S. 922 (Stoutenburgh v. Svecenski) 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

Stoutenburgh v. Svecenski, 133 N.Y.S. 922 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

A motion was made by the defendant" in this case for judgment upon the pleadings. This motion was granted, and an order entered thereon. Subsequently the plaintiff made a motion for a reargument of the first motion, which was denied, and he appeals from both orders.

[1] An appeal will not lie from an order denying a motion for a reargument. Percy v. Sire, 119 N. Y. Supp. 225; Romes v. Boettger, 120 N. Y. Supp. 754; Tucker v. Dudley, 104 App. Div. 191, 93 N. Y. Supp. 355.

[2] We need not now determine whether or not the Municipal Court can entertain a motion for judgment on the pleadings. See Roberts v. Spero, 62 Misc. Rep. 261, 114 N. Y. Supp. 898; Martin v. Lefkowitz, 62 Misc. Rep. 490, 115 N. Y. Supp. 64; Maune v. Unity Press, 139 App. Div. 740, 124 N. Y. Supp. 504. For clearly an appeal will not lie from an order denying or granting a motion for judgment upon the pleadings, as such an order is not one of those enumerated in sections 253, 254, and 255 of the Municipal Court act (Laws 1902, c. 580) Spiegelman v. Union Ry. Co., 95 App. Div. 92, 88 N. Y. Supp. 478. And the appeal, if any, should have been taken from the judgment, and not from the order. Metropolitan El. R. R. Co. v. Johnston, 84 Hun, 83, 32 N. Y. Supp. 49; Citron v. Bayley, 36 App. Div. 130, 55 N. Y. Supp. 382; Kromback v. Penn. Steel Co., 84 N. Y. Supp. 297.

Appeal dismissed, with $10 costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

A motion was made by the defendant" in this case for judgment upon the pleadings. This motion was granted, and an order entered thereon. Subsequently the plaintiff made a motion for a reargument of the first motion, which was denied, and he appeals from both orders.

[1] An appeal will not lie from an order denying a motion for a reargument. Percy v. Sire, 119 N. Y. Supp. 225; Romes v. Boettger, 120 N. Y. Supp. 754; Tucker v. Dudley, 104 App. Div. 191, 93 N. Y. Supp. 355.

[2] We need not now determine whether or not the Municipal Court can entertain a motion for judgment on the pleadings. See Roberts v. Spero, 62 Misc. Rep. 261, 114 N. Y. Supp. 898; Martin v. Lefkowitz, 62 Misc. Rep. 490, 115 N. Y. Supp. 64; Maune v. Unity Press, 139 App. Div. 740, 124 N. Y. Supp. 504. For clearly an appeal will not lie from an order denying or granting a motion for judgment upon the pleadings, as such an order is not one of those enumerated in sections 253, 254, and 255 of the Municipal Court act (Laws 1902, c. 580) Spiegelman v. Union Ry. Co., 95 App. Div. 92, 88 N. Y. Supp. 478. And the appeal, if any, should have been taken from the judgment, and not from the order. Metropolitan El. R. R. Co. v. Johnston, 84 Hun, 83, 32 N. Y. Supp. 49; Citron v. Bayley, 36 App. Div. 130, 55 N. Y. Supp. 382; Kromback v. Penn. Steel Co., 84 N. Y. Supp. 297.

Appeal dismissed, with $10 costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 N.Y.S. 922, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stoutenburgh-v-svecenski-nyappterm-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack