Case ID: ny_220/html/0766-02.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

Cataract Journal Company, Plaintiff, v. Louis E. Fuller, Appellant, and Charles B. Smith, Respondent, Impleaded with Others.
    Appeal — Court of Appeals without jurisdiction to review order of Appellate Division affirming order in action purporting to enforce a stipulation.
    An order in an action, which purports to “.enforce a stipulation ” made therein, by directing payment of a sum of money, does not finally determíne a special proceeding, nor grant a new trial, nor is it a final judgment in an action. This court, therefore, has no jurisdiction to review an order of affirmance by the Appellate Division.
    
      Cataract Journal Co. v. Fuller, 175 App. Div. 911, appeal dismissed.
    (Argued April 17, 1917;
    decided May 1, 1917.)
    Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered November 27, 1916, which affirmed an order of Special Term granting a motion by respondent to compel appellant to pay to him a sum of' money pursuant to a stipulation discontinuing an action.
    
      Louis E. Fuller, appellant, in person.
    
      Irving W. Cole and Hamilton Ward for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from an order in an action which purports to “ enforce • a stipulation ” made therein by directing appellant to pay to respondent the sum of $650. The stipulation recites that the parties have consented to such payment and provides for the discontinuance of the action. The Appellate Division affirmed the order of the Special Term but did not allow an appeal to this court. The appeal maynot be taken as of right. The order does not finally determine ¿.special proceeding nor grant a new trial and it is not a final judgment in an action. This court has no jurisdiction (Van Arsdale v. King, 155 N. Y. 325, 330), and the appeal should be dismissed, with costs, without considering the questions presented by the briefs of counsel.

Hiscock, Ch. J., Chase, Hogan, Pound, McLaughlin, Crane and Andrews, JJ., concur.

Appeal dismissed.