From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Midtown Plottage Corporation v. Sullivan

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Feb 16, 1928
131 Misc. 473 (N.Y. App. Term 1928)

Opinion

February 16, 1928.

Appeal from the Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Third District.

Charles J. Herson, for the appellant.

James I. Moore, for the respondent.


Manifestly, in line with our decision in Godwin v. Hauer (N.Y.L.J. Feb. 8, 1924), where under the 1923 amendment to section 125 of the Municipal Court Code the attorney for the successful party refuses to prepare the judgment, the opposing attorney or the clerk, under direction of the court, may prepare the judgment.

As none of the orders appealed from are appealable as of course, and no permission to appeal appears in the papers, the appeals must be dismissed.

Appeals dismissed.

All concur; present, DELEHANTY, LYDON and LEVY, JJ.


Summaries of

Midtown Plottage Corporation v. Sullivan

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Feb 16, 1928
131 Misc. 473 (N.Y. App. Term 1928)
Case details for

Midtown Plottage Corporation v. Sullivan

Case Details

Full title:MIDTOWN PLOTTAGE CORPORATION, Appellant, v. JAMES SULLIVAN, Respondent

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department

Date published: Feb 16, 1928

Citations

131 Misc. 473 (N.Y. App. Term 1928)
227 N.Y.S. 357

Citing Cases

Sherman Son, Inc., v. Heitmin Garage, Inc.

That the judgment was entered upon appellant's motion, respondent neglecting to complete the record, does not…