Bornstein v. Diskin

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Bornstein v. Diskin

84 N.Y.S. 248

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided June 22, 1903·Published

Opinion

MacLEAN, J.

It not appearing from the moving papers that the attorney for the defendant who did appear and answer was the attorney for the codefendants, or that he knew the latter had not been served, or that the case was not at issue by default, the court below properly refused to strike the case from its calendar, and its order must be affirmed, with costs.

Order affirmed, with costs. All concur.

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

MacLEAN, J.

It not appearing from the moving papers that the attorney for the defendant who did appear and answer was the attorney for the codefendants, or that he knew the latter had not been served, or that the case was not at issue by default, the court below properly refused to strike the case from its calendar, and its order must be affirmed, with costs.

Order affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Bornstein v. Diskin, 84 N.Y.S. 248 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1903).

Pincite

84 N.Y.S. 248 (Bornstein v. Diskin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.