Case Name: James J. Newman, Appellant, v. Ida Abrams, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1920-01
Citations: 190 A.D. 956
Docket Number: 
Parties: James J. Newman, Appellant, v. Ida Abrams, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 190
Pages: 956–957

Head Matter:
James J. Newman, Appellant, v. Ida Abrams, Respondent.
An undertaking to perfect an appeal from a Justice’s Court is fully described by sections 1335 and 3050, Code of Civil Procedure. Hence an order granting leave for a new undertaking to correct misreeitals plainly means such an undertaking as is set forth in such sections; and the order need not in terms direct signatures, mention the number of sureties, or prescribe an acknowledgment, since all these formal essentials are implied. Often motion costs are imposed in granting such leave. This is to discourage loose practice and neglects. (Eaton v. Potts, 96 Misc. Rep. 182.) But motion costs are not strictly a matter of right, where such amendments are only to correct minor clerical details. However, here plaintiff has to pay ten dollars costs for his opposition, although defendant’s notice and undertaking were then inaccurate. Plaintiff’s attorney’s motion to set aside a service at his office because made on a Saturday before noon was denied, and such denial might have carried motion costs. Hence this court modifies the order so as to grant the amendment of the notice and undertaking, without costs to either party, and to deny plain tiff’s motion to set aside the service, with ten dollars costs. As thus modified, the order is affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party.

Opinion:
Jenks, P. J., Rich, Putnam, Blaekmar and Jayeox, JJ., concur.