Philip Carey Manufacturing Co. v. Partition Manufacturing & Installation Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Philip Carey Manufacturing Co. v. Partition Manufacturing & Installation Corp.

281 A.D. 1047, 121 N.Y.S.2d 681, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4284

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

DecidedMay 25, 1953

StatusPublished

This text of 281 A.D. 1047 (Philip Carey Manufacturing Co. v. Partition Manufacturing & Installation Corp.) 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

Philip Carey Manufacturing Co. v. Partition Manufacturing & Installation Corp., 281 A.D. 1047, 121 N.Y.S.2d 681, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4284 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

In a judgment creditor’s action, order granting motion to open default in answering and vacating the judgment entered thereon and granting leave to answer reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with $10 costs, without prejudice to a new application for the same relief on papers showing an excuse for the default in answering and a meritorious defense. While sufficient excuse was disclosed for failure to appear on the motion for judgment, the affidavit of the attorney does not reveal against whom or when or for what the judgment alleged to be res judicata was obtained. He does not allege knowledge on his part of the facts which would be a defense to the action and which would warrant opening the default in answering. Adel, Acting P. J., Wenzel, MacCrate, Schmidt and Beldoek, JJ., concur.

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

In a judgment creditor’s action, order granting motion to open default in answering and vacating the judgment entered thereon and granting leave to answer reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with $10 costs, without prejudice to a new application for the same relief on papers showing an excuse for the default in answering and a meritorious defense. While sufficient excuse was disclosed for failure to appear on the motion for judgment, the affidavit of the attorney does not reveal against whom or when or for what the judgment alleged to be res judicata was obtained. He does not allege knowledge on his part of the facts which would be a defense to the action and which would warrant opening the default in answering. Adel, Acting P. J., Wenzel, MacCrate, Schmidt and Beldoek, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D. 1047, 121 N.Y.S.2d 681, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4284, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/philip-carey-manufacturing-co-v-partition-manufacturing-installation-nyappdiv-1953.