Legal Opinion · Dissent

Canelli Wine Co. v. Tassi

New York Supreme Court

Decided January 15, 1915Published

Appeal by defendants from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, borough of Manhattan, fifth district, entered upon their default in appearing or answering.

1Dissent

Whitaker, J. (dissenting).

Appellants submit affidavits that they were never served with summonses. Respondent submits counter affidavits to the effect that the summons was served upon one of the defendants, James Tassi. Appellants base their contention that an appeal is proper upon the provisions of section 311 of the Municipal Court Act, which provides as follows:

*577“An appeal must be taken within twenty days after the entry of the judgment, order or final order in the docket, except that where a defendant appeals from a judgment rendered in an action wherein he did not appear and the summons…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Friedberger v. StulpnagelAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1908
  2. Dixon v. CarrucciAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1906
  3. Waldman v. MannAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1906

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API