Case ID: misc_125/html/0825-01.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

Andrew F. Reeck, as Guardian ad Litem of Dorothy Ruth Reeck, an Infant under the Age of Fourteen Years, Appellant, v. Alexander Royfe and Another, a Copartnership, Doing Business under the Name of Royfe & Swimmer, Respondents.
    Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,
    April 22, 1925.
    Appeal — decisions reviewable — appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction — fact that Municipal Court of City of New York granted leave to appeal does not give Appellate Term of Supreme Court jurisdiction.
    An appeal from an order of the Municipal Court of the City of New York should be dismissed, since the order appealed from is not one that is appealable to the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, under subdivision 7 of section 154 of the Municipal Court Code. The fact that the Municipal Court of the City of New York granted leave to appeal does not give the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court jurisdiction.
    Appeal from an order of the Municipal Court, Borough of Brooklyn, Sixth District.
    
      Nathaniel H. Kramer, for the appellant.
    No appearance for the respondents.
   Per Curiam:

Appeal dismissed, but as respondents neither appeared nor submitted a brief, no costs are allowed.

The order is not appealable. The fact that leave to appeal was granted by the court below does not give this court jurisdiction. It can obtain jurisdiction through the granting of leave to appeal only in the certain cases that are specified. (See Mun. Ct. Code, § 154, subd. 7, since amd. by Laws of 1925, chap. 637.) The motion should have been granted. (See Wilson v. Simpson, 84 N. Y. 674; Drake v. Hodgson, 119 Misc. 288; affd., 203 App. Div. 856.)

Present: Cfopsey, Lazansey and MacCrate, JJ.