Zink v. International Radiant Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zink v. International Radiant Corp.

4 A.D.2d 758, 165 N.Y.S.2d 704, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4884

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

DecidedJuly 1, 1957

StatusPublished

This text of 4 A.D.2d 758 (Zink v. International Radiant Corp.) 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

Zink v. International Radiant Corp., 4 A.D.2d 758, 165 N.Y.S.2d 704, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4884 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages alleged to have been suffered by appellant in connection with the assignment to him by respondent of certain accounts receivable, the appeal is from an order which on reargument (1) vacated a judgment entered by appellant, on respondent’s default in pleading, (2) permitted respondent to interpose an answer, and (3) vacated a third-party subpcena issued by appellant. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Upon the motions which resulted in the order appealed from, respondent established sufficient facts to justify the discretionary action of the Special Term. We pass on no other question. Nolan, P. J., Murphy, Ughetta, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages alleged to have been suffered by appellant in connection with the assignment to him by respondent of certain accounts receivable, the appeal is from an order which on reargument (1) vacated a judgment entered by appellant, on respondent’s default in pleading, (2) permitted respondent to interpose an answer, and (3) vacated a third-party subpcena issued by appellant. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Upon the motions which resulted in the order appealed from, respondent established sufficient facts to justify the discretionary action of the Special Term. We pass on no other question. Nolan, P. J., Murphy, Ughetta, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 A.D.2d 758, 165 N.Y.S.2d 704, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4884, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zink-v-international-radiant-corp-nyappdiv-1957.