Case Name: William Rubin, Plaintiff, v. Prudence Bonds Corporation et al., Defendants, and Florindo S. Polo, Respondent. Alexander Rothstein, Appellant
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1948-03-18
Citations: 297 N.Y. 250
Docket Number: 
Parties: William Rubin, Plaintiff, v. Prudence Bonds Corporation et al., Defendants, and Florindo S. Polo, Respondent. Alexander Rothstein, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 297
Pages: 250–252

Head Matter:
William Rubin, Plaintiff, v. Prudence Bonds Corporation et al., Defendants, and Florindo S. Polo, Respondent. Alexander Rothstein, Appellant.
Argued March 1, 1948;
decided March 18, 1948.
Alexander Rothstein, appellant in person.
William M. Kilcullen for respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Questions of fact are presented by the record as to whether appellant improperly abandoned the case or was justifiably dismissed. Since the Appellate Division order fails to make the specifications required by section 602 of the Civil Practice Act, we are compelled to presume that questions of fact were not considered and to " treat" the Appellate Division order as being a determination on the law only." (See People ex rel. Sheffield Farms Co., Inc., v. Lilly, 295 N. Y. 354, 356; see, also, Tufts v. Stolz, 297 N. Y. 673.) So regarded, the Appellate Division order cannot be sustained. The order is accordingly reversed, without costs, and the matter remitted to the Appellate Division " for determination upon the questions of fact raised in that court " (Civ. Prac. Act, § 606).
Loijghran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Thacher, Dye and Feed, JJ., concur.
Order reversed, etc.