From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rubin v. Prudence Bonds Corp.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Mar 18, 1948
78 N.E.2d 598 (N.Y. 1948)

Opinion

Argued March 1, 1948

Decided March 18, 1948

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, EDER, J.

Alexander Rothstein, appellant in person.

William M. Kilcullen for respondent.


Questions of fact are presented by the record as to whether appellant improperly abandoned the case or was justifiably dismissed. Since the Appellate Division order fails to make the specifications required by section 602 of the Civil Practice Act, we are compelled to presume that questions of fact were not considered and to "treat the Appellate Division order as being a determination on the law only." (See People ex rel. Sheffield Farms Co., Inc., v. Lilly, 295 N.Y. 354, 356; see, also, Tufts v. Stolz, 297 N.Y. 673.) So regarded, the Appellate Division order cannot be sustained. The order is accordingly reversed, without costs, and the matter remitted to the Appellate Division "for determination upon the questions of fact raised in that court" (Civ. Prac. Act, § 606).

LOUGHRAN, Ch. J., LEWIS, CONWAY, DESMOND, THACHER, DYE and FULD, JJ., concur.

Order reversed, etc.


Summaries of

Rubin v. Prudence Bonds Corp.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Mar 18, 1948
78 N.E.2d 598 (N.Y. 1948)
Case details for

Rubin v. Prudence Bonds Corp.

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM RUBIN, Plaintiff, v. PRUDENCE BONDS CORPORATION et al.…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Mar 18, 1948

Citations

78 N.E.2d 598 (N.Y. 1948)
78 N.E.2d 598

Citing Cases

Axelrod v. Krupinski

Moreover, even though it should be determined that Krupinski and plaintiff husband were both negligent,…