Opinion
Argued February 5, 1918
Decided February 15, 1918
James O. Sebring for appellant.
Richard H. Thurston, H.L. Gardner and H.H. Rockwell for respondents.
The application of relator for an alternative writ of mandamus having come on to be heard as a contested motion (Code Civ. Pro. § 2067, as amended by L. 1913, ch. 574), the Special Term in the exercise of its discretion denied the application. The Appellate Division, on appeal (Code Civ. Pro. § 2087, as amended by L. 1913, ch. 574), also in the exercise of discretion, affirmed the order denying the application. The order appealed from is not the object of review in this court. ( People ex rel. Flynn v. Woods, 218 N.Y. 124-127.)
The appeal should be dismissed, with costs.
HISCOCK, Ch. J., COLLIN, CUDDEBACK, CARDOZO, POUND, CRANE and ANDREWS, JJ., concur.
Appeal dismissed.