Proctor & Schwartz, Inc. v. Linke

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Proctor & Schwartz, Inc. v. Linke

39 A.D.2d 612, 331 N.Y.S.2d 598, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4837

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

DecidedApril 20, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 39 A.D.2d 612 (Proctor & Schwartz, Inc. v. Linke) 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

Proctor & Schwartz, Inc. v. Linke, 39 A.D.2d 612, 331 N.Y.S.2d 598, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4837 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered August 19, 1971 in Washington County, which denied a motion by appellant to open a default judgment and to permit him to serve an answer in the action. In view of the service of the summons and complaint by the Sheriff on appellant on July 1, 1969 at a time when there was no visual difficulty, the claimed placing of said papers on a shelf of the saw mill by appellant, the lack of proof of inability to read or communicate for a specific time subsequent to the injury of July 8, 1969, the forwarding of a letter by respondent to appellant dated July 14, 1969 advising the latter of the former’s claim as to deficiencies, and the length of time elapsing between the service of the papers and the application for relief by appellant, [613]*613it cannot be said that Special Term abused its discretion in denying the motion. Order affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, P. J., Cooke, Sweeney, Simons and Kane, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered August 19, 1971 in Washington County, which denied a motion by appellant to open a default judgment and to permit him to serve an answer in the action. In view of the service of the summons and complaint by the Sheriff on appellant on July 1, 1969 at a time when there was no visual difficulty, the claimed placing of said papers on a shelf of the saw mill by appellant, the lack of proof of inability to read or communicate for a specific time subsequent to the injury of July 8, 1969, the forwarding of a letter by respondent to appellant dated July 14, 1969 advising the latter of the former’s claim as to deficiencies, and the length of time elapsing between the service of the papers and the application for relief by appellant, [613]*613it cannot be said that Special Term abused its discretion in denying the motion. Order affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, P. J., Cooke, Sweeney, Simons and Kane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.2d 612, 331 N.Y.S.2d 598, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4837, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/proctor-schwartz-inc-v-linke-nyappdiv-1972.