Goldstein v. Reiss & Fishman, Inc.

Per Curiara.

We think that the decision of the trial court was proper and no material error committed in the receipt of evidence. The form of the judgment appears to be substantially correct in view of the failure to demand the return of the chattel in accordance with the provisions of sections 1119 and 1124 of the Civil Practice Act (see Hoffman v. Hoffman, 266 App. Div. 724; Beck v. Schneider, 84 Misc. 23).

The judgment appealed from should be affirmed, with costs to the respondents.