From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Higgins v. Childs

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Jun 5, 1958
13 Misc. 2d 442 (N.Y. App. Term 1958)

Opinion

June 5, 1958

Appeal from the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Manhattan, JOSEPH RAFFERTY, J.

Raymond H. Sipperley for appellant.

Eugene H. Nickerson and Ruth H. Joseph for respondent.


The court having failed to specify the grounds on which the motion for a new trial was made and the grounds on which it was decided, the order granting a new trial did not comply with rule 224 of the Rules of Civil Practice and must be reversed ( Magee v. Rifkind, 153 N.Y.S.2d 731).

The order should be reversed, with $10 costs, and motion denied.

Concur — HOFSTADTER, J.P., HECHT and TILZER, JJ.

Order reversed, etc.


Summaries of

Higgins v. Childs

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Jun 5, 1958
13 Misc. 2d 442 (N.Y. App. Term 1958)
Case details for

Higgins v. Childs

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM HIGGINS, Appellant, v. PHILIP CHILDS, Doing Business as MORN…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department

Date published: Jun 5, 1958

Citations

13 Misc. 2d 442 (N.Y. App. Term 1958)
176 N.Y.S.2d 73

Citing Cases

Hall v. City of New York

That statute affords specific and distinct grounds for the granting of such a motion, viz., exceptions;…