From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Frank v. Rowland Shafto, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 1, 1915
169 App. Div. 918 (N.Y. App. Div. 1915)

Opinion

June, 1915.

Present — Ingraham, P.J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Clarke and Scott, JJ.


The defendant having failed to appeal from the interlocutory judgment before the entry of final judgment, and the interlocutory judgment having been merged in the final judgment, the only appeal which could then be taken was from the final judgment. The defendant then had the right to review the interlocutory judgment on appeal from the final judgment by inserting in his notice of appeal a statement that he wished to review the interlocutory judgment. ( Bates v. Holbrook, 89 App. Div. 548.) As this appeal is from the interlocutory judgment taken after the entry of final judgment, such appeal is not authorized and it must, therefore, be dismissed, with ten dollars costs.


Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with ten dollars costs.


Summaries of

Frank v. Rowland Shafto, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 1, 1915
169 App. Div. 918 (N.Y. App. Div. 1915)
Case details for

Frank v. Rowland Shafto, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:ADAM FRANK, Respondent, v . ROWLAND SHAFTO, INC., and CHARLES F.H…

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

Date published: Jun 1, 1915

Citations

169 App. Div. 918 (N.Y. App. Div. 1915)

Citing Cases

Lyons v. Scriber

September, 1919. Motion granted, with ten dollars costs, upon the authority of Frank v. Rowland Shafto, Inc.…