Adams v. Burstein

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Adams v. Burstein

135 N.Y.S. 586

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 27, 1912

StatusPublished

This text of 135 N.Y.S. 586 (Adams v. Burstein) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adams v. Burstein, 135 N.Y.S. 586 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

On the day set for the trial of this case the defendant appeared in court with his witnesses. His attorney was absent and an inquest was taken. Upon the motion made to open the default, the attorney testified that he was unusually delayed, owing to the congestion of the traffic over the Brooklyn Bridge, and could only reach the courtroom at about 9:30 a. m., at which time the inquest had already been taken. A verified answer had already been interposed, and an affidavit of merits was submitted. The answering affidavit does not dispute the foregoing statement, and makes no claim that the defendant was unduly delaying the trial of the case. It merely attacks the merits of the defendant’s defense, which can best be determined after a trial. The default should be opened.

Order reversed, judgment vacated, and case set down for trial on the 10th day of June, 1912, with costs to abide the event.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

On the day set for the trial of this case the defendant appeared in court with his witnesses. His attorney was absent and an inquest was taken. Upon the motion made to open the default, the attorney testified that he was unusually delayed, owing to the congestion of the traffic over the Brooklyn Bridge, and could only reach the courtroom at about 9:30 a. m., at which time the inquest had already been taken. A verified answer had already been interposed, and an affidavit of merits was submitted. The answering affidavit does not dispute the foregoing statement, and makes no claim that the defendant was unduly delaying the trial of the case. It merely attacks the merits of the defendant’s defense, which can best be determined after a trial. The default should be opened.

Order reversed, judgment vacated, and case set down for trial on the 10th day of June, 1912, with costs to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 N.Y.S. 586, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-v-burstein-nyappterm-1912.