Legal Opinion · Dissent

Mandel v. Brodsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided December 15, 1953Published

1Dissent

Callahan, J. P.

(dissenting). I dissent and vote to reverse for the reasons stated in the opinion of Carlin, J., at Special Term of the City Court (199 Misc. 8). The Appellate Term relied on section 164 of the Civil Practice Act as it existed prior to amendment by chapter 554 of the Laws of 1951. This enactment also added the new section 163-a. The situation in this case, however, is not affected in any way. The new section 163-a (as did former § 164) deals with the service of papers and authorizes mailing in a letter box or other specified depository with the same effect as if deposited in…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Handel v. BrodskyCity of New York Municipal Court · 1950

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

Powered by the Exa API