History
  • No items yet
midpage
Kupperman v. Zirinsky
124 Misc. 366
N.Y. App. Term.
1925
Check Treatment
Per Curiam:

From the notice of appeal it would appear that this is an appeal from a judgment, but in fact it is from an order entered on the seventeenth day of June amending a former judgment for the defendant so as to make it one for plaintiff. This order was the result of a motion made by order to show cause “ why the judgment should not be vacated and set aside as against the law and a hew trial ordered.”

While the court had power to vacate the judgment and grant a new trial, to change the judgment from one in favor of the defend*367ant to a judgment for plaintiff was unauthorized. (Miller, Inc., v. Leahy Building Co., 95 Misc. 616.)

Order modified by striking therefrom “ judgment therefore amended to read judgment for plaintiff for rent $220 counterclaim dismissed as premature and without prejudice,” and substituting therefor “ judgment vacated and a new trial ordered,” and order as so modified affirmed, without costs of appeal to either party.

All concur; present, Guy, O’Malley and Levy, JJ.

Case Details

Case Name: Kupperman v. Zirinsky
Court Name: Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
Date Published: Jan 8, 1925
Citation: 124 Misc. 366
Court Abbreviation: N.Y. App. Term.
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.