Murrell v. Graziade

130 N.Y.S. 140
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided June 12, 1911·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

BIJUR, J.

The defendant excuses his nonattendance by the affidavit of his attorney that the New York Daw Journal was not delivered at his office until 1 o’clock p. m. of the day on which the case appeared on the calendar at 9:45 a. m.

There is a serious defect in the moving papers, namely, the absence of any allegations showing a meritorious defense, or, indeed, any indication at all of what the defense may be. This omission is fatal. Harvey v. Gillies (Sup.) 117 N. Y. Supp. 204; Clews v. Peper, 112 App. Div. 430, 98 N. Y. Supp. 404.

Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with $10 costs. All concur.

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

Murrell v. Graziade, 130 N.Y.S. 140 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1911).

130 N.Y.S. 140 (Murrell v. Graziade) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

West Electric Hair Curler Co. v. Hamilton Corp.
150 N.Y.S. 750 (New York Supreme Court, 1914)
West Electric Hair Curler Co. v. Hamilton Corp.
88 Misc. 331 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1914)