Case Name: B. P. Ducas Company, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Continental Finishing Company, Defendant. Moses N. Berlin, a third party, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1909-11
Citations: 65 Misc. 42
Docket Number: 
Parties: B. P. Ducas Company, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Continental Finishing Company, Defendant. Moses N. Berlin, a third party, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 65
Pages: 42–42

Head Matter:
B. P. Ducas Company, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Continental Finishing Company, Defendant. Moses N. Berlin, a third party, Appellant.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,
November, 1909.)
Municipal Courts — Review — Judgments and orders renewable — Order to examine third party on attachment.
No appeal lies from an order of the Municipal Court of the city of New York directing a third party to appear for examination concerning the defendant’s interest in property sought to be attached.
Appeal by Moses 1ST. Berlin from an order of the Municipal Court of the city of Hew York, first district, borough of Manhattan, denying his motion to vacate an order of a justice of said court directing him to appear and submit to an examination concerning his dealings with the defendant.
Herman B. Goodstein, for appellant.
Jay C. Guggenheimer, for respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
A third party appeals from an order denying a motion to vacate an order granted under section 80 of the Municipal Court Act. We are of opinion that the Municipal Court Act does not permit an appeal from an order of this character. The orders, as distinct from judgments in that court, from which appeals may be taken, are specified in sections 253, 254, 255, 256 and 257 of the Municipal Court Act. The jurisdiction of this court to review orders made in the Municipal Court exists solely by force of statute. While it may seem very desirable that the appellate tribunal should have power to review an order of this character, we cannot exercise jurisdiction in the absence of any legislative enactment conferring it upon ns. Spiegelman v. Union Railway Co., 95 App. Div. 92.
The appeal must be dismissed, with ten dollars costs.
Present, Gildersleeve, Seabury and Lehman, JJ.
Appeal dismissed, with ten dollars costs.