Case ID: misc_124/html/0366-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Francis Kupperman, Respondent, v. Osher Zirinsky, Appellant.
    Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
    January 8, 1925.
    Judgments — Municipal Court of City of New York — court without power to alter judgment from one in favor of defendant to judgment for plaintiff.
    The Municipal Court of the City of New York has power to vacate a judgment and grant a new trial, but it is unauthorized to alter a judgment from one in favor of the defendant to a judgment for the plaintiff.
    Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Manhattan, Seventh District, in favor of plaintiff.
    
      Zvirin & Zvirin [Nathan Zvirin of counsel], for the appellant.
    
      Frederick & Jerome Weiss [Frederick Weiss of counsel], for the respondent.
   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 defendant 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.