Case ID: misc_59/html/0153-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Grrenbaum, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Louis Brown et al, Appellants, v. Fannie Grossman et al., Respondents.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term,
    May, 1908.)
    New trial — Proceedings to procure new trial — Time for application — Verdict contrary to law or instructions.
    The time limitation under section 1002 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies only to motions for a new trial founded upon an allegation of error in a finding of fact or ruling upon the law made by the judge upon the trial; and a motion for a new trial, upon the ground that the verdict is contrary to law as ruled by the trial judge, is not within such limitation.
    Appeal from an order of the Special Term of the City Court of the city of New York, granting a motion by defendants for an order directing plaintiffs-appellants to accept service of a certain proposed case on appeal.
    I. Gainsburg, for appellants.
    J. McG. Goodale, for respondents.
   Grrenbaum, J.

The time limitation affecting motions for a new trial under section 10051 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies to motions “ founded upon an allegation of error, in a finding of fact, or ruling upon the law, made by the judge upon the trial.” Fleisehmann v. Samuel, 18 App. Div. 99.

The motion for the new trial in this case is specifically stated not to be based upon any error in a finding of fact (clearly not applicable to a jury trial) or ruling upon the law made by the judge upon the trial of the action, but is expressly limited to the grounds that the “ verdict is contrary to the law as ruled by said trial judge.”

In other words, a new trial is sought because the jury found a verdict in violation of the legal instructions of the court and the proofs submitted to them; and the case of Barrett v. Third Avenue R. R. Co., 45 N. Y. 628, seems to be authority for the correctness of defendants’ practice.

The order appealed from must be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Gildersleeve and Giegerich, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.