Goldreyer v. Shalita — 152 N.Y.S. 1002

Majority

p. 1002

GOLDREYER v. SHALITA et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.

May 6, 1915.)

Headnote

Costs <S=»238—Improper Brief.

Where a judgment is affirmed, but respondent’s brief does not conform to the requirements of General Rules of Practice, rule 43, made applicable by calendar rule 4 of the Appellate Term, First Department, and it contains a gratuitous, improper, and immaterial reflection on appellant’s attorney, no costs will be allowed to respondent.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see , Costs, Cent. Dig. §§ 908-919; Dec. Dig. <§=»238.j

Appeal from City Court of New York, Trial Term.

Action by Sussman Goldreyer against Morris Shalita and another. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed, but without costs.

Argued April term, 1915, before GUY, BIJUR, and PENDLETON, JJ.

Max Schenkman, of New York City (Charles G. F. Wahle, of New York City, of counsel), for appellants.

Slade & Slade, of New York City (Benjamin Slade, Maxwell Slade, and David Slade, all of New York City, of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, without costs, in view of the fact.that respondent’s brief is printed in form violating rule 43 of the General Rules of Practice, made applicable by rule 4 of the Calendar Rules of this court, and particularly because on page 43 of respondent’s brief appears a gratuitous, improper, and immaterial reflection upon appellant’s attorney.