
    SCHWARTZ v. SCHENDEL.
    (23 Misc. Rep. 476.)
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    May 3, 1898.)
    Appealable Order—Vacating Default.
    Under Laws 1896, c. 748, no appeal lies from a justice’s order vacating a former order opening a default.
    Appeal from district court.
    Action by Olga Schwartz against Simon Schendel. From an order vacating an order affirming a default, defendant appeals. Motion to dismiss granted.
    Argued before BEEKMAN, P. J., and GILDERSLEEVE and GIEGERICH, JJ.
    Abraham B. Schleimer, for the motion.
    Benno Loewy, opposed.
   PER CURIAM.

It appears that, after making the order opening the defendant’s default upon conditions, the justice below made a subsequent order, which is the one appealed from, vacating his-former order, and, in effect, denying the motion, on the ground that the conditions upon which his former order had been made had not been complied with. This motion is now made to dismiss the appeal on the ground that an appeal wall not lie from such an order. We think the objection is well taken. Under chapter 748 of the Laws of 1896, an appeal lies only from an order opening a default. The right to appeal to this court from the determinations of the district courts (now the municipal courts) of the city of New York rests upon statute; and, as there is no statutory authority for such an appeal as has been taken here, this court has no jurisdiction to entertain it, and the motion to dismiss must therefore be granted, with $10 costs.  