Case ID: ny_164/html/0566-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mart F. Hannon, Respondent, v. Siegel-Cooper Company, Appellant.
    Reported below, 52 App. Div. 624.
    (Argued October 1, 1900;
    decided October 9, 1900.)
    Motion to "dismiss an appeal, by permission, from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered June 15, 1900, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict, and an order denying a motion for a new trial.
    The motion was made upon the grounds that the order allowing the appeal does not recite that a question of law is involved which ought to be reviewed by the Court of Appeals; that no such question is involved; that said order was granted improvidently and without notice to the respondent, and that so much of subdivision 2 of section 191 of the Code of Civil Procedure as authorizes the allowance of an appeal by a judge of the Court of Appeals is unconstitutional.
    
      Abraham Levy for motion.
    
      George Putzel opposed. .
   The motion is to vacate allowance of an appeal made ex parte, by a judge of this court, in an action to recover damages for personal injuries, from a judgment for the plaintiff unanimously affirmed by the Appellate Division which had refused to certify that in its opinion a question of law is involved which ought to be reviewed by the Court of Appeals. The allowance of the appeal is not reviewable; the application for the allowance could be made ex parte.

The motion is denied, with ten dollars costs.