Case ID: misc_74/html/0090-01.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

Joseph E. Schloss, Appellant, v. Frank Wilson, Respondent.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term,
    November, 1911.)
    Municipal Courts — Review: Judgments and orders reviewable — Order setting aside service of process: Review of intermediate order on appeal from judgment: Record and return.
    Although' an order of the Municipal Court of the city of New York sustaining the' traverse of the defendant and setting aside the service of a summons is not appealable, it may be reviewed upon an appeal from a judgment in favor of the' plaintiff, where defendant’s notice of appeal exhibits his intention to review it.
    Upon an appeal from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York the return must be settled and allowed by the justice in accordance with section 318 of the Municipal Court Act.
    Appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment and order of the Municipal Court of the city of blew York, borough of Manhattan, fifth district.
    Samuel P. Goldman (Maurice L. Heidenheimer and William C. McKee, of counsel), for appellant.
    Tipple & Plitt (Arthur W. Clement, of counsel), for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

The plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Municipal Court dismissing the action and also setting aside the service of the summons and complaint, and also states in his notice of appeal that he appeals from an order entered on March 27, 1911, sustaining the traverse of the defendant and setting aside the service of the summons. Standing alone, an appeal from an order of this kind will not lie, as it is not one of those orders enumerated in the Municipal Court.Act from which an appeal can be taken in the first instance. Lyons v, Mulvihill, 128 N. Y. Supp. 653, It was, however, evidently the intent of the plaintiff to appeal from the judgment and bring up for review the said order. This may be done (¡M¡un. Ct. Act, § 311), and the notice of appeal in this case may be so regarded. The return from the judgment is not properly before' this court, as it has not been settled and allowed by the trial justice as required by section 318 of the Múnicipal Court Act. It is only in cases of appealable orders that the settlement before the trial justice is not necessary (Guttenberg v. Taibbi, 67 Misc. Rep. 426; N. Y. L. J. March 15, 1910); and an order not appealable can only be reviewed upon án appeal from a judgment. The return must be sent back for settlement and allowance.

Return remitted to the lower court for settlement and allowance by the trial «justice.

Present: Seabuby, Guy and Cohalan, JJ.

Return remitted to lower court.