
    Louis Curtis, Appellant, v. Charles L. Ritzman, Respondent.
    (New York Common Pleas—General Term,
    March, 1894.)
    To be effectual as a limitation of the time to appeal, the notice of entry of judgment must state the date of such entry. It is not sufficient that such date appears in some other part of the document upon which the notice is indorsed.
    Appeal by the plaintiff from an order of the General Term of the City Court, affirming an order denying Ms motion to dismiss defendant’s appeal from an interlocutory judgment on the ground that the appeal was not taken in time.
    
      F. F. Bullcvrd, for appellant.
    
      J. George Flammer, for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

The defendant interposed a demurrer which was overruled, and a-n interlocutory judgment was entered December 28, 1893. Ilis notice of appeal therefrom was served on January 19, 1894, and was too late if plaintiff had given proper notice of the entry of his judgment more than ten days previously. Code Civ. Proc. § 3190.

We agree Avith the City Court that the notiee was not sufficient, because it failed to state the date of the entry of the judgment. It was indorsed upon a copy of the judgment and its sufficiency must be determined by Avliat it contained, and cannot be supported by information as to the date of entry contained in another part of the document. Date of entry of the judgment is a requisite of the notice. Matter of N. Y. C. R. R. Co., 60 N. Y. 112. This is to enable the adversary to insert the exact date in his notice of appeal, for if there be error in giving date of entry of the judgment in the notice of appeal, or in the undertaking on appeal, they are irregular and may be disregarded. Dinkel v. Wehle, 61 How. 159. Strict practice is required of a party who would limit the time of his adimrsary to appeal. Good v. Daland, 119 N. Y. 153.

The order should be affirmed, with costs and disbursements.

Present: Daly, Ch. J., Bisohoff and Peyor, JJ.

Order affirmed, with costs.  