Burstein v. McGonigle — 128 N.Y.S. 1116

Majority

p. 1116

BURSTEIN v. McGONIGLE et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

March 17, 1911.)

Headnote

Appeal from Municipal Court of New York. Action by Assilt Burstein against Daniel McGonigle individually and as city marshal of the city of New York, and another. From a judgment of the Municipal Court for defendants, and from an order denying a new trial," plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Adolph .Benevy, for appellant.

Barnett E. ICopelman, for respondents.

The appeal in this case was submitted without argument. There is a return, not indorsed as provided for by section 317 "of the Municipal 'Court act of New York City. Laws 1902, c. 580. Nor does it contain “all the proceedings, including the evidence and the judgment,” as also provided for by such section. It is stated in the return that “all the proceedings had, evidence given, and exhibits and papers used on said trial are annex-t ed hereto and made- part of this return.” ■ But no papers are annexed to the return. There is, however, with the return a “record” and a mass of detached papers, some 15 in number. The situation presented is, therefore, quite similar to that which was condemned by this court in Skinner v. Allison, 124 App. Div. 541 , 108 N. Y. Supp. 970 , and, following the decision in that case, the appeal herein must be dis-. missed. Judgment and order of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.

HIRSCHBERG, J., reads for dismissal of appeal, with whom RICH, J., concurs.