Korenman v. Blauner

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Korenman v. Blauner

113 N.Y.S. 736

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedDecember 16, 1908

StatusPublished

This text of 113 N.Y.S. 736 (Korenman v. Blauner) 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.

Bluebook

Korenman v. Blauner, 113 N.Y.S. 736 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Even if the papers showed a meritorious defense, which they do not, the motion to open the default was properly denied because of the defendants’ inexcusable and unexplained conduct in answering the case “Ready” day after day, and holding the plaintiff and his witnesses in court, during all of which time the defendants had, or should have had, knowlédge of the absence of the witness who they now claim was necessary to their defense.

Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.

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

PER CURIAM.

Even if the papers showed a meritorious defense, which they do not, the motion to open the default was properly denied because of the defendants’ inexcusable and unexplained conduct in answering the case “Ready” day after day, and holding the plaintiff and his witnesses in court, during all of which time the defendants had, or should have had, knowlédge of the absence of the witness who they now claim was necessary to their defense.

Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 N.Y.S. 736, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/korenman-v-blauner-nyappterm-1908.