History
  • No items yet
midpage
Goldstein v. Guedalia
40 A.D. 451
N.Y. App. Div.
1899
Check Treatment
Per Curiam:

The decision which was filed in this case contained no separate statement of facts and conclusions of law, but was a short decision, as permitted by section 1022 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Ho exceptions were filed to it, as required by that section. We have recently held that where such is the case the court has no power to review either the decision of the court or any exceptions táken during the progress of the trial. (Thompson v. Schwartz, 39 App. Div. 658; Van Vleck v. Ballou, post, p. 489.)

The judgment, therefore, must be affirmed, with costs.

' Present—Van Brunt, P. J., Barrett, Rumsey, Patterson and O’Brien, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Case Details

Case Name: Goldstein v. Guedalia
Court Name: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Date Published: May 15, 1899
Citation: 40 A.D. 451
Court Abbreviation: N.Y. App. Div.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.