Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1916

Federal Iron & Metal Co. v. William Levine & Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided February 10, 1916

157 N.Y.S. 229 (New York Supplement)

Counsel

Gerson C. Young, of New York City, for appellant., Max Silverstein, of New York City (Jacob Silverstein, of New York City, of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from an order denying in part the defendant’s motion to retax the costs theretofore taxed in favor of the plaintiff. The Municipal Court Code makes no provision for an appeal of this character. If, upon a motion made for a review of taxation of costs, the judgment is thereby increased or diminished, an appeal, if taken at all, must be from the judgment. Speigelman v. Union R. R. Co., 95 App. Div. 92, 88 N. Y. Supp. 478. If, upon such review, the motion is denied, and the judgment remains as originally entered, following the rule-laid down in People ex rel. Solomon v. Lang, 109 App. Div. 706, 96 N. Y. Supp. 555, the appeal must likewise be taken from the judgment, bringing up, by reference thereto in the notice of appeal, the order denying the motion. In order to prevent another appeal, however, we may say that we have carefully examined the record and consider the action of the lower court correct. .

Appeal dismissed, with $10 costs.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.