Siegel v. Sanar Properties Ltd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Siegel v. Sanar Properties Ltd.

43 A.D.2d 700, 350 N.Y.S.2d 614, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3024

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

DecidedDecember 3, 1973

StatusPublished

This text of 43 A.D.2d 700 (Siegel v. Sanar Properties Ltd.) 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

Siegel v. Sanar Properties Ltd., 43 A.D.2d 700, 350 N.Y.S.2d 614, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3024 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendants from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated January 17, 1973, which denied their motion to vacate a judgment entered December 10, 1971 upon consent and a stipulation agreed to in open court. Order reversed, without costs, and motion granted and judgment vacated on condition that defendants tender at the office of plaintiff’s attorney, within 10 days after entry of the order to be made hereon, all sums due under the stipulation. On the facts of this case it was an improvident exercise of discretion to hold defendants in default for their failure, by one day, to make the payment required by the terms of the stipulation. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Latham, Shapiro, Gulotta and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendants from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated January 17, 1973, which denied their motion to vacate a judgment entered December 10, 1971 upon consent and a stipulation agreed to in open court. Order reversed, without costs, and motion granted and judgment vacated on condition that defendants tender at the office of plaintiff’s attorney, within 10 days after entry of the order to be made hereon, all sums due under the stipulation. On the facts of this case it was an improvident exercise of discretion to hold defendants in default for their failure, by one day, to make the payment required by the terms of the stipulation. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Latham, Shapiro, Gulotta and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 A.D.2d 700, 350 N.Y.S.2d 614, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3024, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/siegel-v-sanar-properties-ltd-nyappdiv-1973.