From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Riegelman v. Brunnings

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 1, 1899
36 App. Div. 351 (N.Y. App. Div. 1899)

Opinion

January Term, 1899.

George W. Schurman, for the appellant.

James W. Ridgway, for the respondent.


We are satisfied from an examination of this case that the court was authorized to take the view of the evidence which it has, and grant the order appealed from. ( O'Shea v. McLear, 15 Civ. Proc. Rep. 69.) The court should, however, have imposed as a condition the payment of costs and such disbursements as the defendant in protecting his rights has been required to pay. This will include a copy of the stenographer's minutes.

The order should be modified by directing the payment of the costs and disbursements by the plaintiff, and as modified it should be affirmed, without costs to either party in this court.

All concurred.

Order modified so as to impose as a condition of the new trial the payment by respondent of the costs and disbursements of the trial had, and as modified affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party.


Summaries of

Riegelman v. Brunnings

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 1, 1899
36 App. Div. 351 (N.Y. App. Div. 1899)
Case details for

Riegelman v. Brunnings

Case Details

Full title:LAURA M. RIEGELMAN, Respondent, v . HERMAN BRUNNINGS, Appellant

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

Date published: Jan 1, 1899

Citations

36 App. Div. 351 (N.Y. App. Div. 1899)
56 N.Y.S. 755