Case Name: James W. Magee et al., Appellants, v. Julian Rifkind et al., Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1956-06-14
Citations: 13 Misc. 2d 563
Docket Number: 
Parties: James W. Magee et al., Appellants, v. Julian Rifkind et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 13
Pages: 563–563

Head Matter:
James W. Magee et al., Appellants, v. Julian Rifkind et al., Respondents.
Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
June 14, 1956.
Morris Schwalb for appellants.
Murray M. Zoberg and Merrill Charlton for respondents.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The court did not specify the grounds on which the motion for a new trial was made and the grounds on which it was decided in the order vacating the judgment after trial and ordering a new trial; no opinion or memorandum was rendered in connection with the motion and such grounds are not indicated in any way. The order, therefore, fails to comply with the requirements of rule 224 of the Rules of Civil Practice (Morris v. Phillips, 48 N. Y. S. 2d 423).
The order should be reversed, with $10 costs, and judgment reinstated.
Concur — Hofstadter, Heoht and Aurelio, JJ.
Order reversed, etc.