Gruntal & Co. v. Hyman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gruntal & Co. v. Hyman

48 A.D.2d 807, 369 N.Y.S.2d 412, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10005

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 24, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 48 A.D.2d 807 (Gruntal & Co. v. Hyman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gruntal & Co. v. Hyman, 48 A.D.2d 807, 369 N.Y.S.2d 412, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10005 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered October 11, 1974, unanimously reversed, in the exercise of discretion, the motion to set aside a judgment on inquest granted to the extent of restoring the cause for trial, with $60 costs and disbursements to abide the event. Defendant-appellant was in court on a July day, and her attorney stated she was too ill to proceed to trial and requested an adjournment. The application was summarily denied, the court characterizing the illness as feigned, and she was directed to proceed to trial before another Judge. She refused to do so on the same ground, and inquest was taken. The affidavit of merit is sufficient, the judgment not being based on a default in the usual sense. A medical certificate is found in the motion papers. There can be no prejudice to plaintiff, and there will be no undue burden on the court because the trial will apparently be short. In the circumstances, denial of the motion was improvident. Concur—Markewich, J. P., Murphy, Lupiano, Tilzer and Capozzoli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered October 11, 1974, unanimously reversed, in the exercise of discretion, the motion to set aside a judgment on inquest granted to the extent of restoring the cause for trial, with $60 costs and disbursements to abide the event. Defendant-appellant was in court on a July day, and her attorney stated she was too ill to proceed to trial and requested an adjournment. The application was summarily denied, the court characterizing the illness as feigned, and she was directed to proceed to trial before another Judge. She refused to do so on the same ground, and inquest was taken. The affidavit of merit is sufficient, the judgment not being based on a default in the usual sense. A medical certificate is found in the motion papers. There can be no prejudice to plaintiff, and there will be no undue burden on the court because the trial will apparently be short. In the circumstances, denial of the motion was improvident. Concur—Markewich, J. P., Murphy, Lupiano, Tilzer and Capozzoli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 A.D.2d 807, 369 N.Y.S.2d 412, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10005, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gruntal-co-v-hyman-nyappdiv-1975.