Case ID: nys_103/html/0787-01.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

(53 Misc. Rep. 650)
    HALLAHAN et al. v. CAMBRIDGE HOTEL CO. et al.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    April 10, 1907.)
    Courts—Municipal Courts—Ajppeau—Appealable Orders.
    An order denying a motion to vacate the appearance of a tenant, noted on the precept in summary dispossession proceedings, not being one of the orders enumerated in Municipal Court Act, Laws 1902, pp. 1562, 1563, c. 580, §§ 253-257, from which appeals may be taken, was not appealable.
    Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Fourteenth District.
    Summary proceedings by Mary A. C. Hallaban and another against the Cambridge Hotel Company and Roland W. McCurdy. From an order denying defendant McCurdy’s motion to vacate his appearance, noted on the precept, he appeals. Dismissed.
    Argued before GILDERSLEEVF, P. L, and GIEGERICH and ERLANGER, JJ.
    Myers & Goldsmith, for appellant.
    Earley, Weaver & Earley, for respondents.
   PER CURIAM.

The tenant McCurdy in this proceeding moved in the Municipal Court for an order vacating and canceling his 'appearance, noted upon the precept by indorsement thereon, and appeals from the order made denying his motion. He has adopted a mistaken remedy. The order appealed from is not one of the orders enumerated in sections 253-257 of the Municipal Court act (Laws 1902, pp. 1562, 1563, c. 580), and is therefore not appealable. White v. Lawyers’ Surety Co. (Sup.) 84 N. Y. Supp. 247.

Appeal dismissed, with $10 costs.