R. Mudano v. Sichko

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

R. Mudano v. Sichko

227 A.D. 670

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 15, 1929·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Order of the County Court of Nassau county denying motion of defendants Nicholas Sechko (sued as Nicholay A. Sichko) and Kate Sechko to dismiss complaint, to strike out answer of defendant Smith Alford & Co., Inc., and to vacate undertakings affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to plaintiffs, respondents. The motion is made by Bushel and Gottlieb, who claim to be attorneys for appellants. The record shoals that Mr. Hyman Bushel was the attorney for appellants when the answer was served. Mr. Bushel was appointed a city magistrate and no other attorney has been substituted. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 240.) Lazansky, P. J., Kapper, Seeger, Carswell and Seudder, JJ., concur.

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

Order of the County Court of Nassau county denying motion of defendants Nicholas Sechko (sued as Nicholay A. Sichko) and Kate Sechko to dismiss complaint, to strike out answer of defendant Smith Alford & Co., Inc., and to vacate undertakings affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to plaintiffs, respondents. The motion is made by Bushel and Gottlieb, who claim to be attorneys for appellants. The record shoals that Mr. Hyman Bushel was the attorney for appellants when the answer was served. Mr. Bushel was appointed a city magistrate and no other attorney has been substituted. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 240.) Lazansky, P. J., Kapper, Seeger, Carswell and Seudder, JJ., concur.

R. Mudano v. Sichko, 227 A.D. 670 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

227 A.D. 670 (R. Mudano v. Sichko) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related