From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kreizer v. Allaire

Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Feb 1, 1896
16 Misc. 6 (N.Y. App. Term 1896)

Opinion

February, 1896.

Fromme Brothers, for appellant.

E.H. Benn, for respondents.


The position of this court with respect to the City Court is the same as that occupied by the Court of Appeals in regard to this court; and the rules that govern the Court of Appeals in passing upon appeals from the Supreme Court are applicable to matters coming before this term. McEteere v. Little, 8 Daly, 167; 7 Abb. N.C. 374; Walsh v. Schulz, 12 Daly, 103; Keller v. Feldman, 2 Misc. 179; 29 Abb. N.C. 426. The same reason that prevents the Court of Appeals from reviewing matters resting in the discretion of other courts applies with full force to appeals brought to this court from discretionary orders of the City Court. Ibid.

The decision of the Special Term of the City Court upon the motions in question was reviewable by the General Term of that court; but the orders vacating the orders of arrest are not appealable to this court unless they show they were vacated for want of power. Allen v. Meyer, 73 N.Y. 1; Williams v. Tel. Co., 93 id. 640; Brooks v. Mexican Co., Id. 647; Hudson R.T. Co. v. R.R. Co., 121 id. 397.

Unless the contrary appears in the orders appealed from, it must be assumed they were made by the City Court in the exercise of its discretion. Clarke v. Lourie, 82 N.Y. 580. The opinion of the court below cannot be resorted to for the determination of the ground on which it acted in reaching its decision. Clark v. Lourie, supra; Dibble v. Dimick, 143 N.Y. 554, 555.

If the General Term had incorporated in its orders that the decision of the Special Term judge was sustained by it on the ground that the action was not maintainable, a question of law would have been raised which might be reviewed here. Anderson v. Anderson, 112 N.Y. 106; Birge v. Berlin Iron B. Co., 133 id. 477. But the orders contain no such recital; nor do they refer to and make the opinion part of the record, as was done in Tolman v. R.R. Co., 92 N.Y. 353.

As the record comes before us, it merely discloses the exercise of a lawful discretion by the City Court, and the appeals must, therefore, be dismissed, with costs.

DALY, P.J., and BISCHOFF, J., concur.

Appeals dismissed, with costs.


Summaries of

Kreizer v. Allaire

Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Feb 1, 1896
16 Misc. 6 (N.Y. App. Term 1896)
Case details for

Kreizer v. Allaire

Case Details

Full title:BERNARD KREIZER, Appellant, v . JOHN T. ALLAIRE, Respondent. BERNARD…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term

Date published: Feb 1, 1896

Citations

16 Misc. 6 (N.Y. App. Term 1896)
37 N.Y.S. 687

Citing Cases

Wolf v. Di Lorenzo

D., L. W.R.R. Co. v. Burkard, 40 Hun, 625. Accordingly the motion for retaxation proceeded upon a question of…

Rheinfeldt v. Dahlman

We cannot review the propriety of the decision. Kreiser v. Allaire, 16 Misc. 6. The jury returned a verdict…