De Stefano v. Brown
This text of 84 N.Y.S. 165 (De Stefano v. Brown) 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.
Opinion
In each of these cases the plaintiff is a nonresident, and, if the defendants had moved for security for costs before answer, they would have been entitled to it as a matter of right. Having obtained the order after answer, the question, on plaintiffs’ motion to vacate it, was addressed to the discretion of the court. Upon all the facts as they were made to appear, and especially as a satisfactory excuse for the delay was presented, and the plaintiff was shown to be financially irresponsible, and the alleged cause of action arose outside of this state, we cannot hold that there was an abuse of discretion. The order in each case is affirmed, with costs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
84 N.Y.S. 165, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/de-stefano-v-brown-nyappterm-1903.