Case ID: misc2d_13/html/0442-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

William Higgins, Appellant, v. Philip Childs, Doing Business as Morn Trading Co., Respondent.
    Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
    June 5, 1958.
    
      Raymond H. Sipperley for appellant.
    
      Eugene H. Nickerson and Ruth H. Joseph for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

The court having failed to specify the grounds on which the motion for a new trial was made and the grounds on which it was decided, the order granting a new trial did not comply with rule 224 of the Rules of Civil Practice and must be reversed (Magee v. Rifkind, 153 N. Y. S. 2d 731).

The order should be reversed, with $10 costs, and motion denied.

Concur — Hofstadter, J. P., Hecht and Tilzer, JJ.

Order reversed, etc.