From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Popkin v. Friedlander

Supreme Court, Appellate Term
May 1, 1898
23 Misc. 475 (N.Y. App. Term 1898)

Opinion

May, 1898.

Moses Feltenstein, for appellants.

I.B. Ripinsky, for respondent.


We are not inclined to interfere with the decision of the justice below opening the defaults, and if a review was asked for solely on the merits, we should affirm the orders. The point, however, is made that the orders appealed from do not comply with the requirements of chapter 748 of the Laws of 1896, amending section 1367 of the Consolidation Act, which, among other things, provides that the order of a justice on opening a default "shall recite and contain the grounds for the order." The objection is well taken, as the justice has utterly failed to comply with this requirement. This is fatal to the orders, and calls for a reversal. Colwell v. Devlin, 20 Misc. 355.

Orders reversed, with costs, and causes remitted to Municipal Court of the City of New York, borough of Manhattan, fourth district, for the entry of proper orders upon notice.

Present: BEEKMAN, P.J., GILDERSLEEVE and GIEGERICH, JJ.

Orders reversed, with costs, and causes remitted to Municipal Court for entry of proper orders on notice.


Summaries of

Popkin v. Friedlander

Supreme Court, Appellate Term
May 1, 1898
23 Misc. 475 (N.Y. App. Term 1898)
Case details for

Popkin v. Friedlander

Case Details

Full title:ISAAC POPKIN, Respondent, v . HARRIS FRIEDLANDER, Appellant. ISAAC POPKIN…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term

Date published: May 1, 1898

Citations

23 Misc. 475 (N.Y. App. Term 1898)
51 N.Y.S. 398

Citing Cases

Stivers v. Ritt

Numerous decisions support the view that failure to state the grounds is fatal to the validity of the order.…

Koerkle v. Pangborn

The Municipal Court of the City of New York is a continuation of the District Courts (Worthington v. London…