Case ID: nys_71/html/0947-01.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

(35 Misc. Rep. 305.)
    TRANSCENDENT LIGHT CO. v. STEITZ.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    June, 1901.)
    Appeal—Review—Exceptions Below.
    Where, on refusal of leave to discontinue at the close of the testimony, plaintiff takes no exception to the ruling, it cannot be reviewed on appeal.
    Appeal from municipal court, borough of Manhattan, Second district.
    Action by the Transcendent Light Company against Thomas Steitz. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
    Argued before SCOTT, P. J., and BEACH and FITZGERALD, JJ.
    Herbert J. Hindes, for appellant.
    Aaron Morris, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff asked leave to discontinue at the close of the testimony, and such leave was refused. If exception had been taken to this ruling, judgment would have to be, reversed. Rothenberg v. Filarsky, 30 Misc. Rep. 610, 62 N. Y. Supp. 721. No exception was taken, and plaintiff’s omission in this respect is fatal. Judgment affirmed, with costs.