
    AGULNICK v. RAUCH.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.
    June 26, 1916.)
    Appeal and Error ©=>419(2)—-Appeal from Order—Record—Dismissal.
    Where notice of appeal states it is from an order dated February 2, 1916, referring to it in no other way, but no such order apears in the record, though it contains one dated February 25, 1916, the appeal must be dismissed.
    [Ed. Note.—-For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. § 2146;, Dec. Dig. <@=>419(2).]
    Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of the Bronx, Second District.
    Action by Sam Agulnick against Fred Rauch. From an order vacating an order for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Appeal dismissed.
    Argued June term, 1916,
    before GUY, BIJUR, and PHILBIN, JJ.
    Rosansky & Goldberg, of New York City, for appellant.
    Anthony J. Romagna, of New York City, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

The notice of appeal herein states that the appeal is taken from an order bearing date the 2d day of February 1916. No such order appears in the record. There is an order in the record dated February 25, 1916, but as the notice of-appeal merely refers to an order by its date, and makes no mention of the contents or nature of the order, it is impossible to determine that the notice of appeal refers to the order dated February 25, 1916. The appeal must therefore be dismissed.

Appeal dismissed, with $10 costs.  