Legal Opinion

Rubin v. Prudence Bonds Corp.

New York Court of Appeals

Decided March 18, 1948PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Per 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 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…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. People Ex Rel. Sheffield Farms Co., Inc. v. LillyNew York Court of Appeals · 1946
  2. Tufts v. StolzNew York Court of Appeals · 1947

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Axelrod v. KrupinskiNew York Court of Appeals · 1951

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

Powered by the Exa API