Case Name: Donald Mitchell, Respondent, v. The Dunmore Realty Company, Appellant
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1910-06-17
Citations: 199 N.Y. 530
Docket Number: 
Parties: Donald Mitchell, Respondent, v. The Dunmore Realty Company, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 199
Pages: 530–531

Head Matter:
Donald Mitchell, Respondent, v. The Dunmore Realty Company, Appellant.
Mitchell v. Dunmore Realty Co., 135 App. Div. 583, modified.
(Argued May 31, 1910;
decided June 17, 1910.)
Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered December 31, 1909, which reversed a judgment dismissing the complaint entered upon an order of Special Term granting a motion by defendant for judgment on the pleadings in an action for the foreclosure of a mechanic’s lien.
The following questions were certified: “ 1. In a case where the court by order had granted judgment on the pleadings dismissing the complaint on motion of one of the several defendants under section 547 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and judgment had been duly entered upon such order dismissing the complaint as to the defendant, the moving party, and awarded costs in favor of said defendant against the plaintiff, can the plaintiff appeal to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court from such final judgment dismissing the complaint, giving notice in the notice of appeal that upon such appeal the plaintiff intends to bring up for review the interlocutory order of the Special Term dismissing the complaint on the pleadings and directing such judgment ? 2. Does an appeal from a final judgment entered upon an order granting judgment under section 547 of the Code of Civil Procedure lie to the Appellate Division, and upon such appeal can the Appellate Division review the interlocutory order granting such judgment on the pleadings where notice is given that the appellant intends to review such order on the appeal from the judgment? ”
W. B. Symmes, Jr., for appellant.
Walter II. Dodd and Howard A. Sperry for respondent.

Opinion:
Order modified by striking out all provisions relating to costs and by ordering a new trial, with costs to abide the event, and as modified affirmed, with costs to abide the event. Questions certified not answered because the appeal is from a final judgment; no opinion.
Concur: Cullen, Ch. J.', Gray, Haight, Vann, Werner, Hisoook and Chase, JJ.