Case ID: misc_7/html/0662-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pryor, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Eliza W. White, Respondent, v. Jose Balta, Appellant.
    (New York Common Pleas—General Term,
    April, 1894.)
    An application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals must state the question of law it desires to have reviewed, and that question must be one not only of importance, but which has never been adjudicated by the Court of Appeals.
    Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals.
    
      Jones <& Govm, for motion.
    
      Olcott (& Oleott, opposing.
   Pryor, J.

The motion is reprehensible. It asks the privilege of an appeal to the Court of Appeals from a judgment of this court affirming the judgment of the District Court for a sum less than $100. The action was for a month’s rent of a storeroom, and upon the trial only issues of fact were in controversy. It is not pretended in the moving papers that the case involves any question of law at all, much less one “ which ought to be reviewed by the Court of Appeals.” Code, § 191, subd. 3. Does counsel suppose that our highest tribunal is instituted for the purpose of entertaining anew the petty wrangles of the District Court? And why should we be vexed by such frivolous and futile motions ?

An application for leave to take a cause to the Court of Appeals must state the question of law it desires to have reviewed, and that question must be one not only of importance, but which has never been adjudicated by the Court of Appeals—a proposition which no lawyer will dispute is not a question of law.

The motion should be denied, with ten dollars costs.

Daly, Ch. J., and Bischoff, J., concur.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs.