Treitel v. Arnold Chait, Ltd.

20 A.D.2d 711, 247 N.Y.S.2d 373, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4477
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 3, 1964
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 20 A.D.2d 711 (Treitel v. Arnold Chait, 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
Treitel v. Arnold Chait, Ltd., 20 A.D.2d 711, 247 N.Y.S.2d 373, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4477 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Opinion

In an action against an insurance broker, Arnold Chait, Ltd., and others, to recover damages by reason of breach of contract, misrepresentation, etc., the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated October 30, 1963, which granted the motion of the defendant Arnold Chait, Ltd., to open its default and to vacate a default judgment in plaintiff’s favor against it; the motion being granted on condition that it pay to plaintiff the sum of $50 costs. Order modified as follows: (1) by striking out its three decretal paragraphs; and (2) by substituting therefor a decretal paragraph granting said defendant’s motion to the extent of opening its default and permitting it to answer or otherwise move with respect to the complaint, on condition that it pay $50 costs to the plaintiff and on the further condition that the judgment shall stand as security pending the final disposition of the action. As so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs. The time of said defendant to answer or otherwise move is extended until 20 days after entry of the order hereon. In our opinion, under the circumstances disclosed by this record, Special Term properly determined that the defend. ant’s default was excusable and should be opened. However, it was an improvident exercise of discretion not to impose, as a further condition to the granting of such relief, that the judgment shall stand as security pending the [712]*712final disposition of the action. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

Related

46 Downing Street LLC v. Thompson
41 Misc. 3d 1018 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 2013)
Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Quantech Electronics Corp.
186 A.D.2d 630 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
Ackerson v. Stragmaglia
176 A.D.2d 602 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
Rooney Pace, Inc. v. Braverman
74 A.D.2d 555 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1980)
Reynolds Securities, Inc. v. Underwriters Bank & Trust Co.
378 N.E.2d 106 (New York Court of Appeals, 1978)
Rawson v. Austin
49 A.D.2d 803 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1975)
Long Mfg. NC, Inc. v. Ames Supply Co.
47 A.D.2d 990 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1975)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
20 A.D.2d 711, 247 N.Y.S.2d 373, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4477, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/treitel-v-arnold-chait-ltd-nyappdiv-1964.