From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Klein v. Fairberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 1, 1935
243 App. Div. 609 (N.Y. App. Div. 1935)

Opinion

January, 1935.


Order granting motion of defendant Van Praag Co. to vacate and set aside judgment in plaintiff's favor and for a new trial, and vacating and setting aside the resettled decision, reversed on the law, with costs, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs. In a proper case in the exercise of sound legal discretion the court has inherent power to vacate a judgment to avoid a miscarriage of justice. ( Ladd v. Stevenson, 112 N.Y. 325; Hatch v. Central Nat'l Bank, 78 id. 487; Matter of Marsh, 242 App. Div. 290.) The need for exercising that power is not here present, (a) in that its exercise was founded essentially on what had been the basis of the court's prior determination and embodied in an entered judgment, hence an exercise of appellate power; (b) the vacatur not being founded on anything extrinsic the trial record, the parties, in the exercise of discretion, should be left to pursue the ordinary remedy by appeal, which was and still is available. Lazansky, P.J., Young, Carswell, Scudder and Tompkins, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Klein v. Fairberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 1, 1935
243 App. Div. 609 (N.Y. App. Div. 1935)
Case details for

Klein v. Fairberg

Case Details

Full title:JACOB S. KLEIN, Appellant, v. LEO N. FAIRBERG, Defendant, and VAN PRAAG…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jan 1, 1935

Citations

243 App. Div. 609 (N.Y. App. Div. 1935)

Citing Cases

Tomoser v. Hegyi

An appeal is the appropriate remedy." ( Matter of Whitney v. Chesbro, 244 App. Div. 594; see, also, Klein v.…

Moskowitz v. Moskowitz

No matter what effect the entry had, the court, in the exercise of discretion, had the power to relieve the…