Pinkney v. Rivera

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pinkney v. Rivera

27 A.D.2d 515, 276 N.Y.S.2d 840, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2971

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

DecidedDecember 1, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 27 A.D.2d 515 (Pinkney v. Rivera) 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

Pinkney v. Rivera, 27 A.D.2d 515, 276 N.Y.S.2d 840, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2971 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered September 28, 1966, denying defendant-appellant’s motion to vacate his default, unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, and the motion granted, on condition that defendant-appellant submit to examination before trial and pay $30 costs and disbursements of this appeal and the action to date plus $250 counsel fee within 10 days after service of the order to be settled hereon, in default of which the motion is denied. Undoubtedly defendant-appellant has been remiss in violating the orders compelling his appearance for examination. Nevertheless, in the circumstances, we hold that the interests of justice would best be served by granting the vacatur. Settle order on notice. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, McNally, Steuer and Witmer, JJ.

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

Order entered September 28, 1966, denying defendant-appellant’s motion to vacate his default, unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, and the motion granted, on condition that defendant-appellant submit to examination before trial and pay $30 costs and disbursements of this appeal and the action to date plus $250 counsel fee within 10 days after service of the order to be settled hereon, in default of which the motion is denied. Undoubtedly defendant-appellant has been remiss in violating the orders compelling his appearance for examination. Nevertheless, in the circumstances, we hold that the interests of justice would best be served by granting the vacatur. Settle order on notice. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, McNally, Steuer and Witmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 515, 276 N.Y.S.2d 840, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2971, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pinkney-v-rivera-nyappdiv-1966.