Case Name: Finelite v. Finelite et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1891-11-13
Citations: 16 N.Y.S. 287
Docket Number: 
Parties: Finelite v. Finelite et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 16
Pages: 287–287

Head Matter:
Finelite v. Finelite et al.
(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.
November 13, 1891.)
Special Terms—Relief from Orders—Jurisdiction.
Where a special term has granted a motion to extend the time for serving a case on appeal on certain conditions, another special term cannot entertain a motion to be relieved from those conditions, but relief must be had by application to the term that made the order or by appeal to the general term.
Appeal from special term, Few York county.
This was an action by Lena Finelite against Alexander Finelite and others for the reformation of a deed. Judgment was rendered in favor of defendants, dismissing plaintiff’s complaint. Fotice of appeal was given, but the time to serve a case yvas allowed to expire. On plaintiff’s motion, further time to serve the case was allowed by Justice Lawrence on condition that she should give bond to pay defendants all costs and damages resulting from the appeal. After filing several bonds, which were not approved, she filed a motion for relief from the order requiring the bond. This was heard before Justice Barrett, who made an order it, from which plaintiff peals.
Order affirmed.
Argued before Van Brunt, P. J., and Daniels and Ingraham, JJ.
Foster & Stephens, (Geo W. Stephens, of counsel,) for appellant. Abram Kling, for respondents.

Opinion:
Van Brunt, P. J.
Although we are of opinion that the terms imposed by the court upon the making of the original order were exceedingly stringent, yet we do not see how an appeal from the terms of the order, or any portion of them, could be made to another special term, which seems to have been the nature of the motion which resulted in the order appealed from. The only way in which a party could be relieved from the terms imposed as a condition of the granting of a favor asked for is by appeal to the general term, or by application to the same justice who held the court at the time the order was made. There is no such practice as allows an appeal from one special term to another upon any question which has been determined by either. We think, therefore, that, as this motion was simply such an appeal, it was properly denied, and the order appealed from should be affirmed, but, under the circumstances, without costs. All concur.