Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

124 Misc. 547

Ephriam v. Kinstler

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · decided 1925-02-12

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently December 1992

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1925-02-12

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam:

¶1The learned trial justice rightly decided that there was no showing of an assignment to the plaintiff of the rents past due. We are of the opinion, however, that as that point had not been made upon the trial an opportunity should have been afforded the plaintiff of submitting proof that there was such an assignment. As the plaintiff alleges that such proof is available we are sending the case back for a new trial. The failure to file an exception to the decision was not jurisdictional, but procedural, and we permit an exception to be filed. (Termini v. Huth, 191 App. Div. 218; Lichtbach v. Kelbach, 186 N. Y. Supp. 126.)

¶2Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event.

¶3All concur; present, Bijur, Mullan and Cotillo, JJ.

/124/misc/547 · .json · Public domain