Rothenberg v. Herman

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Rothenberg v. Herman

94 N.Y.S. 6

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Rothenberg v. Herman. Read the opinion of the Court — 90 N.Y.S. 431 →

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided May 23, 1905·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The case presented on this appeal differs in its facts from Eichner v. Cohen, 91 N. Y. Supp. 357. In that case neither party appeared, and the cause fell of its own weight. Here there was an appearance on behalf of both parties, and a^ dismissal because plaintiff was not prepared to go on. There is no reason why, in such a case, a plaintiff may not move in the Municipal Court, as he may in any other, to be relieved of his default.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

The case presented on this appeal differs in its facts from Eichner v. Cohen, 91 N. Y. Supp. 357. In that case neither party appeared, and the cause fell of its own weight. Here there was an appearance on behalf of both parties, and a^ dismissal because plaintiff was not prepared to go on. There is no reason why, in such a case, a plaintiff may not move in the Municipal Court, as he may in any other, to be relieved of his default.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Rothenberg v. Herman, 94 N.Y.S. 6 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1905).

Pincite

94 N.Y.S. 6 (Rothenberg v. Herman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related