Case ID: misc_23/html/0329-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Beekman, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Albert Kraetzer, Respondent, v. Emil Thomas et al., Appellants.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term,
    April, 1898.)
    1. City Court of Hew York — Conduct of defendants which admits that there are questions for the jury.
    Where the defendants do not move to dismiss, nor ask for the direction of a verdict, or except to the charge made, or request that any charge be made, there is an unequivocal concession that there are questions of fact for the jury.
    2. Same —■ What orders relative to new trial's are appealable to the Appellate Term.
    An order of the City Court of New York denying a motion for a new trial, when affirmed by its General Term, is not further appeal-able. Only orders granting new trials and questions of law, which are raised by proper exceptions, are reviewable by the Appellate Term.
    Kraetzer v. Thomas, 22 Misc. Rep. 557, affirmed.
    Appeal from a judgment of the General Term of the City Court of the City of Hew York, affirming a judgment rendered upon the verdict of a jury in favor of the respondent.
    John L. Branch, for appellants.
    John Hill Morgan, for respondent.
   Beekman, P. J.

At the close"of the respondent’s case, the. attorney for the appellants moved to dismiss on the ground of the insufficiency of the respondent’s proofs. The motion was denied and an exception was taken to. the ruling of the. court. There, was no renewal of the motion, however, at the close of the appellants’ case, nor was the direction of a verdict asked for, but the case was submitted by the court to the jury without any question being ■ made as to the propriety of this course. ¡No exceptions were taken to the charge of the trial justice, nor were any requests to charge submitted to him by the attorney for the appellants. There was, therefore, ari unequivocal concession on his part that there were questions of fact'in the case Which should be passed upon by the jury, and that there was some evidence tending to support the respondent’s cause of action.

The exception taken to the denial of the motion to> set! aside the verdict and for a new trial, made upon the minutes of the judge after the verdict had been rendered, raises no question for review here. An exception is not proper in such a tease, but an. order expressing the determination of the court upon the motion must be made and entered. This, it is true, was done here, but as an order denying a motion for a new trial is not appealable to this court, the affirmance by 'the General Term below of the order in question was. final. Upon appeals to this court'from the City Court after a trial has been had, only orders granting new trials and questions of law raised by proper exceptions in the course of the trial can be considered. As there are no exceptions presenting any grounds for reversal, it follows that the judgment must be affirmed, with costs.

Gildeesleeve and Giegerich, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.