Cohen v. Gorman

The Superior Court of New York City

Cohen v. Gorman

55 N.Y. St. Rep. 217

CourtThe Superior Court of New York City

DecidedOctober 24, 1893

StatusPublished

This text of 55 N.Y. St. Rep. 217 (Cohen v. Gorman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of New York City primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cohen v. Gorman, 55 N.Y. St. Rep. 217 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

Freedman, J.

This is an appeal from an order denying a motion made by Callman, Rouse and Samuel Barnett, sureties on an indemnity bond given to the defendant as sheriff, to set aside a judgment taken against defendant by default, and to substitute the appellants as defendants, and to permit them to come in and defend. The action was commenced in October, 1891, and resulted in a judgment against the defendant iii June, 1892. The judgment was paid by the defendant and satisfied by the plaintiff of record before the appellants gave notice of motion to bp substituted. In view of these facts, and there being no proof of collusion, and no disclosure of the nature of the proposed defense, the motion was properly denied. Jakobi v. Gorman, 50 St. Rep., 202, is clearly distinguishable.

The order should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Gtldersleeve, J., concurs.

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

Freedman, J.

This is an appeal from an order denying a motion made by Callman, Rouse and Samuel Barnett, sureties on an indemnity bond given to the defendant as sheriff, to set aside a judgment taken against defendant by default, and to substitute the appellants as defendants, and to permit them to come in and defend. The action was commenced in October, 1891, and resulted in a judgment against the defendant iii June, 1892. The judgment was paid by the defendant and satisfied by the plaintiff of record before the appellants gave notice of motion to bp substituted. In view of these facts, and there being no proof of collusion, and no disclosure of the nature of the proposed defense, the motion was properly denied. Jakobi v. Gorman, 50 St. Rep., 202, is clearly distinguishable.

The order should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Gtldersleeve, J., concurs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 N.Y. St. Rep. 217, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cohen-v-gorman-nysuperctnyc-1893.