Sonnak v. Walker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sonnak v. Walker

191 A.D. 156

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

DecidedMarch 5, 1920

DocketAppeal No. 1

StatusPublished

This text of 191 A.D. 156 (Sonnak v. Walker) 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

Sonnak v. Walker, 191 A.D. 156 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

Plaintiff’s affidavit fails to show that at the time this order was granted defendant was still a resident, but instead her affidavit indicated that defendant had changed her residence from New York to Wiscasset, Me. But apart from that, the defendant’s presence in California was not shown as more recent than in December, 1918, leaving her whereabouts for the last three months unaccounted for. This did not meet the statute. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 438 et seq.) Therefore, the order should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion to vacate granted, with ten dollars costs.

Rich, Putnam, Blackmar, Kelly and Jaycox, JJ., concur.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion to vacate granted, with ten dollars costs.

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

Per Curiam:

Plaintiff’s affidavit fails to show that at the time this order was granted defendant was still a resident, but instead her affidavit indicated that defendant had changed her residence from New York to Wiscasset, Me. But apart from that, the defendant’s presence in California was not shown as more recent than in December, 1918, leaving her whereabouts for the last three months unaccounted for. This did not meet the statute. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 438 et seq.) Therefore, the order should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion to vacate granted, with ten dollars costs.

Rich, Putnam, Blackmar, Kelly and Jaycox, JJ., concur.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion to vacate granted, with ten dollars costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 A.D. 156, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sonnak-v-walker-nyappdiv-1920.