
    Rudolph Gersman, Plaintiff, v. David Levy and Robert Friedman, Defendants.
    (City Court of New York, Special Term,
    December, 1907.)
    Appeal — Time of taking — Notice of entry'of judgment or order— Sufficiency of notice — Misspelling of plaintiff’s name — Service after stay of proceedings.
    A notice of the entry of judgment is not a nullity on account of the misspelling of the plaintiff’s name by adding a letter which does not change its sound, nor because the notice is partly printed and partly written.
    A notice of entry of judgment, however, which is served by the plaintiff in violation of a stay of proceedings granted by the trial justice, is ineffectual to limit thg time for appeal.
    Motion to compel acceptance of notice of appeal.
    J. C. Weil, Levi & Newhouse, for motion.
    Katz & Sommerich, opposed.
   Green, J.

I am of the opinion .that the objection made by the defendant, that the notice of the entry of the judgment is a nullity on account of the misspelling of the name by adding an “ n ” to the surname is not good. Gersman spelled “ Gersmann ” sounds the same and cannot be said to mislead. It is a case of idem sonans; it sounds alike, and that has been held sufficient. People ex rel. Kenyon v. Sutherland, 81 N. Y. 12. The second objection,- that the notice of the entry of judgment is insufficient; is likewise untenable, and the fact that part of' the notice is printed and part written is not in contravention of the Code, and has been repeatedly held good. The third objection, however, that plaintiff entered judgment- and served notice of entry which set in motion and operation the limitation of the time to appeal, is serious on account of the stay of proceedings which was granted by the trial justice. I am of the opinion that by thus proceeding the plaintiff violated the stay, and that he had no right to enter judgment nor serve notice of entry thereof. The motion to compel acceptance of the notice of appeal is, therefore, granted upon the authority of Kerner v. Heck, 9 N. Y. Supp. 303, and White v. Klinken, 16 Abb. Pr. 109.

■Motion granted.  