Case ID: misc2d_50/html/0119-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      \n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hyman Blumenstock et al., Appellants, v. Naomi Weissman et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.
    Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,
    March 30, 1966.
    
      Hyman Blumenstock, appellant in person, and for Florence Blumenstock and others, appellants. Allen M. Taylor and Martin M. Baxter for respondents.
   Per Curiam.

In our opinion the holding of the County Court that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the motion to vacate its prior determination would be equally applicable to the Justice’s Court had an application for similar relief been directed to that court in the first instance. (See Duran v. Chelsea Exch. Bank, 123 Misc. 158.)

The order should be affirmed, with $10 costs.

Margett, Brenner and Ollifpe, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed, etc.