Case Name: OSTROM v. SAPOLSKY
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1905-12-21
Citations: 96 N.Y.S. 1070
Docket Number: 
Parties: OSTROM v. SAPOLSKY.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 96
Pages: 1070–1070

Head Matter:
(49 Misc. Rep. 610.)
OSTROM v. SAPOLSKY.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
December 21, 1905.)
1. Municipal CoubiAJudgment—Amendments—Jurisdiction.
A motion by plaintiff for the insertion in a Municipal Court judgment of a clause providing that defendant was liable to arrest and imprisonment on execution was a' motion to amend or modify the judgment, which such court had no jurisdiction to grant after the expiration of five days from tlie entry of the judgment, as provided by Municipal Court Act, Laws 1902, p. 1563, c. 580, '§ 254.
Appeal—Jurisdiction—Judgment-Modification. 2.
Where plaintiff appealed from a judgment in his favor, as well as from an order denying a motion to amend the same by inserting a clause providing for defendant’s arrest'," the appellate court had jurisdiction to modify the judgment by inserting such provision under Municipal Court Act, Laws 1902, p. 1578, c. 580, § 310, authorizing the Appellate Term to reverse, affirm, or modify the final judgment or order appealed, from.
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan,_ Second District.
Action by Meyer Ostrom against Philip Sapolsky. From a Municipal Court judgment in favor of plaintiff, and from an order denying plaintiff’s motion to modify the judgment,, he appeals.
Judgment modified, and order affirmed.
Argued before SCOTT, P. J., and BISCHOFF and MacLEAN, JJ.
Theodore N. Ripsom, for appellant.
Louis M. Picker, for respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.'
The motion made by the plaintiff herein was clearly a motion to amend or modify the judgment, and as such came within the provisions of section 254 of the Municipal Court act (Laws 1902, p. 1563, c. 580), and not having been made within five days, as therein prescribed, the court below had no jurisdiction to entertain it, and could not grant the relief asked for. Buchsbaum v. Feldman, 43 Misc. Rep. 85, 86 N. Y. Supp. 747. The appeal herein, however, being from the judgment, as well as the order, this court may upon appeal "reverse, affirm,,or modify the judgment or final order appealed from" (section 310, Municipal Court Act), and the judgment herein may be modified by inserting therein the words: "Defendant liable to arrest and imprisonment on execution."
Order- affirmed, and judgment modified, without costs to either party.