Pearlson v. Javits

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pearlson v. Javits

19 A.D.2d 729, 242 N.Y.S.2d 523, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3414

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

DecidedJuly 1, 1963

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 19 A.D.2d 729 (Pearlson v. Javits) 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

Pearlson v. Javits, 19 A.D.2d 729, 242 N.Y.S.2d 523, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3414 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action by three sisters of the. defendant to impress a trust on certain assets in the defendant’s possession, which are alleged to he properly a part of the estate of their father, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered December 4, 1962 on the decision of a Special Referee rendered following an inquest taken before said Referee after the defendant’s attorney had withdrawn his appearance and had refused to participate in the trial or to produce the defendant. The judgment granted to the plaintiffs the relief prayed for by them in their second amended complaint. Appeal dismissed, with costs. A judgment resulting from an inquest occasioned by the failure or refusal of a party to appear at the trial is deemed a default judgment from which no appeal lies (Jensen v. Uni-on By. Go., 260 N. Y. 1, 4; Prashker, New York Practice [4tli eel.], p. 991. Ug'hetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Brennan, Hill and Raibin, JJ., concur.

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

In an action by three sisters of the. defendant to impress a trust on certain assets in the defendant’s possession, which are alleged to he properly a part of the estate of their father, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered December 4, 1962 on the decision of a Special Referee rendered following an inquest taken before said Referee after the defendant’s attorney had withdrawn his appearance and had refused to participate in the trial or to produce the defendant. The judgment granted to the plaintiffs the relief prayed for by them in their second amended complaint. Appeal dismissed, with costs. A judgment resulting from an inquest occasioned by the failure or refusal of a party to appear at the trial is deemed a default judgment from which no appeal lies (Jensen v. Uni-on By. Go., 260 N. Y. 1, 4; Prashker, New York Practice [4tli eel.], p. 991. Ug'hetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Brennan, Hill and Raibin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.2d 729, 242 N.Y.S.2d 523, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3414, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pearlson-v-javits-nyappdiv-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack