From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Magee v. Rifkind

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Jun 14, 1956
13 Misc. 2d 563 (N.Y. App. Term 1956)

Opinion

June 14, 1956

Appeal from the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Manhattan, CARROLL HAYES, J.

Morris Schwalb for appellants.

Murray M. Zoberg and Merrill Charlton for respondents.


The court did not specify the grounds on which the motion for a new trial was made and the grounds on which it was decided in the order vacating the judgment after trial and ordering a new trial; no opinion or memorandum was rendered in connection with the motion and such grounds are not indicated in any way. The order, therefore, fails to comply with the requirements of rule 224 of the Rules of Civil Practice ( Morris v. Phillips, 48 N.Y.S.2d 423).

The order should be reversed, with $10 costs, and judgment reinstated.

Concur — HOFSTADTER, HECHT and AURELIO, JJ.

Order reversed, etc.


Summaries of

Magee v. Rifkind

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Jun 14, 1956
13 Misc. 2d 563 (N.Y. App. Term 1956)
Case details for

Magee v. Rifkind

Case Details

Full title:JAMES W. MAGEE et al., Appellants, v. JULIAN RIFKIND et al., Respondents

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department

Date published: Jun 14, 1956

Citations

13 Misc. 2d 563 (N.Y. App. Term 1956)
153 N.Y.S.2d 731

Citing Cases

Higgins v. Childs

Per Curiam. The court having failed to specify the grounds on which the motion for a new trial was made and…