Case Name: CONNOLLY v. MANHATTAN RY. CO. et al.; DE BALAINE v. SAME
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1896-06-29
Citations: 40 N.Y.S. 1007
Docket Number: 
Parties: CONNOLLY v. MANHATTAN RY. CO. et al. DE BALAINE v. SAME.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 40
Pages: 1007–1007

Head Matter:
CONNOLLY v. MANHATTAN RY. CO. et al. DE BALAINE v. SAME.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
June 29, 1896.)
Appeal—Stay During Pendency.
Under Const. 1895, art. 6, § 9, providing that no unanimous decision of the appellate division of the supreme court that there is evidence supporting the finding of fact or a verdict not directed by the court shall be reviewed by the court of appeals, a stay will not be granted pending an appeal to the court of appeals from a judgment which has been unanimously affirmed by the appellate division.
Motions are made in each of these cases for an order staying the operation of the injunction contained in the judgments therein pending an appeal to the court of appeals, and extending the time of the defendants to make the tenders and payments provided for by said judgments until such time as may be reasonable after the decision of the appeal which the defendants have taken to the court of appeals. The granting of such motions would be a matter of course, in ordinary cases. But in these cáses it appears that each of the judgments after modification as to damages, "was unanimously affirmed by the appellate division; and, inasmuch as the new constitution (article 0, § 9) provides that no unanimous decision of the appellate division of the supreme court that there is evidence supporting or tending to sustain the finding of fact on a verdict not directed by the court shall be reviewed by the court of appeals, there is no necessity for a stay, because, upon the face of the papers, the appeal must be fruitless. Motions denied, with costs.
Appeal from special term, New York county.
Actions by Ellen M. B. Connolly against the Manhattan Railway Company and the Metropolitan Elevated Railway Company, and by Mary A. Durup De Balaine against the same defendants. From an order denying a motion by defendants for a stay-in each case pending an appeal to the court of appeals, defendants appeal. Affirmed.
The opinion of Mr. Justice LAWRENCE at special term is as follows:
Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and BARRETT, PATTERSON, and INGRAHAM, JJ.
J. T. Davies, for appellants.
H. A. Forster, for respondent Connolly.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements, in each case, on opinion of Mr. Justice LAWRENCE at special term.