Case ID: nys_99/html/0410-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "GILDERSLEEVE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HILL v. HILL.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    June 1, 1906.)
    Coubts—Municipal Coubt—Rendition op Judgment.
    Municipal Court Act, Laws 1902, p. 1486, c. 580, provides that on a trial to the court'judgment must be rendered within 14 days from the time the questions of law and fact are submitted. Held that, where time was given the parties in which to file briefs, the 14 days began to run from the day for the submission of briefs.
    Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Tenth District.
    Action by Thomas J. Hill against Thomas A. Hill. From an order setting aside a judgment in favor of defendant, he appeals.
    Reversed.
    Argued before GILDERSLEEVE, DAVIS, and CLINCH, JJ.
    William R. Hill, for appellant.
    James E. Smith, for respondent.
   GILDERSLEEVE, J.

This case was tried on November 2, 1905, and, as appears by an indorsement upon the summons, briefs were ■ to be filed November 9, 1905. The respondent also concedes in his brief that the parties were given one week in which to file briefs. Judgment was rendered upon November 20, 1905. As the time in which to render judgment began to run from the day for the submission of briefs, the judgment was rendered within the 14 days prescribed by section 230 of the Municipal Court act (Laws 1902, p. 1557, c. 580). A. M. Eisenberg Co. v. Janzlik (Sup.) 92 N. Y. Supp. 247. The order vacating the judgment was therefore without authority, and must be reversed. ■

Order reversed, with costs, and judgment reinstated. All concur.