Vigo v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vigo v. City of New York

24 A.D.2d 743, 263 N.Y.S.2d 522, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3313

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

DecidedOctober 14, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 24 A.D.2d 743 (Vigo v. City of New York) 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

Vigo v. City of New York, 24 A.D.2d 743, 263 N.Y.S.2d 522, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3313 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Order dated May 3, 1965, denying defendant’s motion for vacatur of an order striking the answer of the defendants Edward J. Tracey, M. D., and C. Graff, M. D., and order dated June 8, 1965, denying renewal of the motion, unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion and motion granted, on condition, however, that the defendants pay to the plaintiff $30 costs and disbursements of these appeals and $250 as counsel fees; and upon further condition that the defendants Tracey and Graff submit to disclosure proceedings in a manner and at a time and place to be provided for in the order to be settled herein. In all the circumstances of this case, including the fact that defendant physicians were in the armed forces, we conclude that the application to open the default should have been granted. However, the circumstances are such as to require that the default be opened only upon defendants’ compliance with the conditions hereinabove imposed. Settle order on notice. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, Stevens and Eager, JJ.

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

Order dated May 3, 1965, denying defendant’s motion for vacatur of an order striking the answer of the defendants Edward J. Tracey, M. D., and C. Graff, M. D., and order dated June 8, 1965, denying renewal of the motion, unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion and motion granted, on condition, however, that the defendants pay to the plaintiff $30 costs and disbursements of these appeals and $250 as counsel fees; and upon further condition that the defendants Tracey and Graff submit to disclosure proceedings in a manner and at a time and place to be provided for in the order to be settled herein. In all the circumstances of this case, including the fact that defendant physicians were in the armed forces, we conclude that the application to open the default should have been granted. However, the circumstances are such as to require that the default be opened only upon defendants’ compliance with the conditions hereinabove imposed. Settle order on notice. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, Stevens and Eager, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.2d 743, 263 N.Y.S.2d 522, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3313, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vigo-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1965.