Topping v. Town of Mamaroneck

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Topping v. Town of Mamaroneck

5 A.D.2d 839, 171 N.Y.S.2d 537, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6985

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 10, 1958

StatusPublished

This text of 5 A.D.2d 839 (Topping v. Town of Mamaroneck) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Topping v. Town of Mamaroneck, 5 A.D.2d 839, 171 N.Y.S.2d 537, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6985 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

This motion, while nominally to authorize appellant “ to limit the printing of the record solely to the testimony pertaining to the trade fixtures for which an award of $6,500.00 was made by the Commissioners” is, in reality, intended as a motion: (a) to abridge the record or case on appeal by omitting therefrom a certain portion which appellant claims to be unnecessary for a consideration of the points to be raised by it on the appeal, and (b) to settle the case on appeal as thus abridged. The scope of this appeal, as indicated by the notice of appeal, would appear to require that a ease he settled in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Practice Act applicable to an appeal from a judgment after trial in an action in the Supreme Court (Condemnation Law, § 19). Motion denied, without costs, and without prejudice to a subsequent motion to dispense with printing, as indicated below. A motion, such as this one — to abridge the contents of the record to be presented on an appeal — must be addressed to the Trial Justice. “Proper practice requires that the case on appeal be settled by the trial justice and not by this court” (Hopper v. Comfort Coal-Lumber Co., 276 App. Div. 869, and authorities there cited; Boylan v. Southern Pacific Co., 253 App. Div. 195; People ex rel. Lowenstein v. Lowenstein, 281 App. Div. 699). Appellant’s attention, however, is called to the fact that, in view of the restricted nature of this appeal involving a condemnation proceeding, the proposed abridgement of the record may prevent a consideration of the merits of the appeal (cf. Condemnation Law, § 15; Matter of New York Municipal Ry. Corp. v. Holliday, 189 App. Div. 814, affd. 228 N. Y. 561). Of course, after the ease has been settled, appellant, if so advised, may make a motion in this court to dispense with the printing of any portion of the settled case or for permission to submit such portion in typewritten or other form.

Present — Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldoek, Murphy and Ughetta, JJ.

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

This motion, while nominally to authorize appellant “ to limit the printing of the record solely to the testimony pertaining to the trade fixtures for which an award of $6,500.00 was made by the Commissioners” is, in reality, intended as a motion: (a) to abridge the record or case on appeal by omitting therefrom a certain portion which appellant claims to be unnecessary for a consideration of the points to be raised by it on the appeal, and (b) to settle the case on appeal as thus abridged. The scope of this appeal, as indicated by the notice of appeal, would appear to require that a ease he settled in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Practice Act applicable to an appeal from a judgment after trial in an action in the Supreme Court (Condemnation Law, § 19). Motion denied, without costs, and without prejudice to a subsequent motion to dispense with printing, as indicated below. A motion, such as this one — to abridge the contents of the record to be presented on an appeal — must be addressed to the Trial Justice. “Proper practice requires that the case on appeal be settled by the trial justice and not by this court” (Hopper v. Comfort Coal-Lumber Co., 276 App. Div. 869, and authorities there cited; Boylan v. Southern Pacific Co., 253 App. Div. 195; People ex rel. Lowenstein v. Lowenstein, 281 App. Div. 699). Appellant’s attention, however, is called to the fact that, in view of the restricted nature of this appeal involving a condemnation proceeding, the proposed abridgement of the record may prevent a consideration of the merits of the appeal (cf. Condemnation Law, § 15; Matter of New York Municipal Ry. Corp. v. Holliday, 189 App. Div. 814, affd. 228 N. Y. 561). Of course, after the ease has been settled, appellant, if so advised, may make a motion in this court to dispense with the printing of any portion of the settled case or for permission to submit such portion in typewritten or other form.

Present — Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldoek, Murphy and Ughetta, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A.D.2d 839, 171 N.Y.S.2d 537, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6985, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/topping-v-town-of-mamaroneck-nyappdiv-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack