Sonnak v. Walker

191 A.D. 156, 180 N.Y.S. 847, 1920 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4678
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 5, 1920·No. Appeal No. 1·Published

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

Sonnak v. Walker, 191 A.D. 156, 180 N.Y.S. 847, 1920 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4678 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1920).

191 A.D. 156 (Sonnak v. Walker) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.