From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ostrom v. Sapolsky

Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Dec 1, 1905
49 Misc. 610 (N.Y. App. Term 1905)

Opinion

December, 1905.

Theodore N. Ripsom, for appellant.

Louis M. Picker, for respondent.


The motion made by the plaintiff herein was, clearly, a motion to amend or modify the judgment and, as such, came within the provisions of section 254 of the Municipal Court Act; and, not having been made within five days, as therein prescribed, the court below had no jurisdiction to entertain it and could not grant the relief asked for. Buschbaum v. Feldman, 43 Misc. 85. The appeal herein, however, being from the judgment as well as the order, this court may, upon appeal, "reverse, affirm or modify the judgment or final order appealed from" (§ 310, Mun. Ct. Act), and the judgment herein may be modified by inserting therein the words: "Defendant liable to arrest and imprisonment on execution."

Order affirmed and judgment modified, without costs to either party.

Present: SCOTT, BISCHOFF and MCLEAN, JJ.

Order affirmed and judgment modified, without costs to either party.


Summaries of

Ostrom v. Sapolsky

Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Dec 1, 1905
49 Misc. 610 (N.Y. App. Term 1905)
Case details for

Ostrom v. Sapolsky

Case Details

Full title:MEYER OSTROM, Appellant, v . PHILIP SAPOLSKY, Respondent

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term

Date published: Dec 1, 1905

Citations

49 Misc. 610 (N.Y. App. Term 1905)
96 N.Y.S. 1070

Citing Cases

Musica v. Amalfitano

If the facts disclosed on the trial were such as to justify the issuance of that process, we could modify the…

Barron v. Feist

It has frequently been held by this court, as well as by the Appellate Division of the Second Department,…