Hyperlawhypertext legal database Borgia & Patane, Inc. v. Paris 155 N.Y.S. 347

← Cases

Borgia & Patane, Inc. v. Paris

155 N.Y.S. 347 Court Argued October term, 1915, before BIJUR, PAGE, and SHEARN, JJ. Decision date 1915-11-03 English

Delivered by SHEARN, J.

Contents

Majority

p. 347
(92 Misc. Rep. 211)
BORGIA & PATANE, Inc., v. PARIS.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.
November 3, 1915.)

Headnote

1. Courts <@=189—Municipal Courts—Vacation of Judgment.
One justice of the New York Municipal Court has no authority, on ground of irregularities, to vacate a judgment entered after trial before another justice.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Courts, Cent. Dig. §§ 409, 412, 413, 429, 458; Dec. Dig. <@=>189.]
2. Courts <@=190—Municipal Courts—Stipulation—Validity.
A stipulation, in an action in the New York Municipal Court, that trial should be conducted without a stenographer, being made in the interest of economy, and evidently contemplating waiver of an appeal, is valid.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Courts, Dec. Dig. <@=190; Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. § 103.]
other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER, in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, First District.
Action by Borgia & Patane, Incorporated, against Nathan Paris. From an order of the Municipal Court, vacating and setting aside a judgment for defendant after trial before the court, defendant appeals. Order reversed, and judgment reinstated.
Argued October term, 1915, before BIJUR, PAGE, and SHEARN, JJ.
Lind & Pfeiffer, of New York City (Alexander Pfeiffer, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Alfonso Bivona, of New York City, for respondent.

[1, 2] One justice of the Municipal Court has no a a justice on the ground of irregularities in that trial. Moreover, there

p. 348
was no irregularity in conducting the trial without a stenographer, where that was done upon stipulation of both sides. The stipulation was in the interest of economy, and evidently contemplated the waiver of an appeal. Dubuc v. Lazell, Dailey & Co., 182 N. Y. 482 , 75 N. E. 401 . I know of no' reason why a stipulation in an action in the Municipal Court is not just as binding as a stipulation in an .action in any other court.

Order reversed, with $10 costs, and judgment reinstated; judgment to be set off against the costs of appeal. All concur. .

Cases cited