Johnson v. Harris

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Johnson v. Harris

19 A.D.2d 600, 240 N.Y.S.2d 941, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3626

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

DecidedJune 11, 1963

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 19 A.D.2d 600 (Johnson v. Harris) 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

Johnson v. Harris, 19 A.D.2d 600, 240 N.Y.S.2d 941, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3626 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on February 6, 1962 granting plaintiff’s motion to open a default and vacate the judgment entered thereon unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellants, and the motion denied. The excuse offered for the plaintiff’s default on the motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute is insufficient and the default should not have been opened. In any event the plaintiff offers no proper defense to the original motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute, and opening the default on that motion would serve no useful purpose. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.

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

Order, entered on February 6, 1962 granting plaintiff’s motion to open a default and vacate the judgment entered thereon unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellants, and the motion denied. The excuse offered for the plaintiff’s default on the motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute is insufficient and the default should not have been opened. In any event the plaintiff offers no proper defense to the original motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute, and opening the default on that motion would serve no useful purpose. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.2d 600, 240 N.Y.S.2d 941, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3626, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-harris-nyappdiv-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack