Rubin v. Prudence Bonds Corp., 78 N.E.2d 598 (N.Y. 1948). · Go Syfert
Search
Rubin v. Prudence Bonds Corp., 78 N.E.2d 598 (N.Y. 1948). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
3 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
How cited ↗
Cited for

No citing cases on record.

Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
William Rubin, Plaintiff,
v.
Prudence Bonds Corporation Et Al., Defendants, and Florindo S. Polo, Respondent. Alexander Rothstein, Appellant
New York Court of Appeals.
Mar 18, 1948.
Published opinion
78 N.E.2d 598
Alexander Rothstein, appellant in person. William M. Kilcullen for respondent.
<italic>Per Curiam.</italic>.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
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[*252] 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.