Hyperlawhypertext legal database Rosenschein v. Friedman 132 N.Y.S. 769

← Cases

Rosenschein v. Friedman

132 N.Y.S. 769 Court N.Y. App. Term Decision date 1912-01-05 English

Contents

Majority

p. 769
ROSENSCHEIN v. FRIEDMAN.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
January 5, 1912.)

Headnote

1. Courts (§ 190[1] ) — Municipal Court — Appeal — Dismissal—Grounds—Fail-
ure to Serve Notice.
An appeal from an order of the Municipal Court will be dismissed, where no notice of appeal' was served within 20 days after entry of the order.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Courts, Dec. Dig. § 190 ;[1] Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 103, 3379%.]
2. Courts (§ 190[1] ) — Municipal Court — Appeal — Dismissal—Insufficiency
op Record.
An appeal from an order of the Municipal Court, not embodied in the clerk’s return, must be dismissed.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Courts, Dec. Dig. § 190;[1] Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 103, 3379%.]
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Eighth District.
Action by Joseph L. Rosenschein against Bella Friedman. From certain orders, defendant appeals. Appeal dismissed.
Argued before SEABURY, LEHMAN, and PAGE, JJ.
Bernard H. Sandler, for appellant.
Eugene I. Yuells, for respondent.

[1, 2] The defendant appeals from two orders, entered, respectively, on July 11 and September 26, 1911. The appeal from the first order must be dismissed, because no notice of appeal was served within 20 days after the entry of the order. The appeal from the second order must be dismissed, because it is not an appealable order. The .notice of appeal also specifies an undated “formal order and judgment,” which is not in the clerk’s return, and this appeal must also be dismissed.

Appeals dismissed, with $10 costs.