Macedo Soares, Inc. v. Guertzenstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Macedo Soares, Inc. v. Guertzenstein

279 A.D. 744, 109 N.Y.S.2d 100, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3623

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 18, 1951·Published

Opinion

We have given full consideration to the rule expressed in Feingold v. Walworth Bros. (238 N. Y. 446) with respect to the extent of the penalty to be imposed for failure of defendant to appear for examination before trial. We find, however, that the examination directed herein was sufficiently extensive to warrant [745]*745striking the answer as a whole for failure of defendant to appear. No substantial issues remained upon which defendant might be heard. Present — Glennon, J. P., Dore, Cohn, Callahan and Shientag, JJ. [See post, p. 791.]

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

We have given full consideration to the rule expressed in Feingold v. Walworth Bros. (238 N. Y. 446) with respect to the extent of the penalty to be imposed for failure of defendant to appear for examination before trial. We find, however, that the examination directed herein was sufficiently extensive to warrant [745]*745striking the answer as a whole for failure of defendant to appear. No substantial issues remained upon which defendant might be heard. Present — Glennon, J. P., Dore, Cohn, Callahan and Shientag, JJ. [See post, p. 791.]

Macedo Soares, Inc. v. Guertzenstein, 279 A.D. 744, 109 N.Y.S.2d 100, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3623 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1951).

Pincite

279 A.D. 744 (Macedo Soares, Inc. v. Guertzenstein) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related