From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Companelli v. Romono

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department
Mar 1, 1930
140 Misc. 72 (N.Y. App. Term 1930)

Opinion

March Term, 1930.

William V. Hagendorn, for the appellant.

Max J. Pershan, for the respondent.


Appeal dismissed, with ten dollars costs. The summons was "substantially" in the form prescribed by section 20 of the Municipal Court Code. The mistake in the number of the district was a mere irregularity. ( Krulewitch v. Pecarsky, 159 N.Y.S. 827.) The address of the clerk having been correct, the defendant could not have been misled. The judgment entered upon service of the summons was, therefore, valid, and the order denying the motion to vacate it is not appealable. (Mun. Ct. Code, § 154.)

All concur; present, CROPSEY, MacCRATE and LEWIS, JJ.


Summaries of

Companelli v. Romono

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department
Mar 1, 1930
140 Misc. 72 (N.Y. App. Term 1930)
Case details for

Companelli v. Romono

Case Details

Full title:LEONARDO A. COMPANELLI, Respondent, v. FRANK ROMONO, Appellant

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department

Date published: Mar 1, 1930

Citations

140 Misc. 72 (N.Y. App. Term 1930)
249 N.Y.S. 38

Citing Cases

Williamson v. Surenko Realties

The 10-day provision for answering, found in subdivision (a) of section 29 of the New York Civil Court Act…