From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hirschfield v. Hassett

Supreme Court, Appellate Term
May 1, 1908
59 Misc. 154 (N.Y. App. Term 1908)

Opinion

May, 1908.

Abraham S. Goldman, for appellant.

Mandelbaum Brothers, for respondents.


This is an appeal from an order staying the plaintiff from proceeding with this action until the costs of a former action between the same parties are paid.

There is no authority for the granting of such an order. Section 779 of the Code of Civil Procedure has no application to the Municipal Court, being expressly limited to courts of record by subdivision 6 of section 3347.

The order made herein is not an appealable order, however. Bevins Rogers App. Term Pr. 61, and cases cited. The remedy of the appellant, if the lower court persists in refusing to permit the trial of the case to proceed, is by writ of mandamus.

Present: GILDERSLEEVE, GIEGERICH and GREENBAUM, JJ.

Appeal dismissed, without costs.


Summaries of

Hirschfield v. Hassett

Supreme Court, Appellate Term
May 1, 1908
59 Misc. 154 (N.Y. App. Term 1908)
Case details for

Hirschfield v. Hassett

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPH HIRSCHFIELD, Appellant, v . ANNIE HASSETT et al., Respondents

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term

Date published: May 1, 1908

Citations

59 Misc. 154 (N.Y. App. Term 1908)
110 N.Y.S. 264

Citing Cases

Hempsted v. White Sewing Machine Co.

" The appellant further claims that the court should refuse to enforce the Municipal Court judgment by means…