Case ID: misc_128/html/0463-01.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

Jeanette Kopisar, Doing Business as the Yale Press, Respondent, v. Alfred Paley, Doing Business under the Trade Name and Style of Russian Antique Company, Appellant.
    Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
    December 24, 1926.
    Judgments — opening default — error in date fixed for trial warrants opening of default — appeal — orders appealable — order denying motion to transfer action to another district not appealable as intermediate order, under Municipal Court Code, § 155.
    A judgment by default should be vacated where the uncontradicted proof shows that there was an error in the date fixed for the trial of the cause.
    An order denying defendant’s motion to transfer the action for trial to another district of the Municipal Court of the City of New York, in the absence of an appeal from a judgment or final order, is not appealable as an intermediate order under section 155 of the Municipal Court Code.
    Appeal by defendant from an order of the Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Fourth District, denying defendant’s motion to open and vacate default judgment, and also from an order of April 18, 1926, denying defendant’s motion to transfer action to another district.
    
      Benjamin Kosseff, for the appellant.
    
      Joseph G. Wiman, for the respondent.
   Per Curiam.

"As the proofs tending to show error in date fixed for trial are uncontradicted, order denying motion to open default reversed, motion granted and judgment vacated, with ten dollars costs to appellant to abide the event, and case set down for trial for December twenty-third.

While the record shows that defendant was entitled to have the cause transferred to the borough of Brooklyn, the order denying the motion to transfer the action, in the absence of an appeal from judgment or final order, is not appealable as an intermediate order (Mun. Ct. Code, § 155), and the appeal from that order is dismissed.

All concur; present, Bijur, O’Malley and Levy, JJ.