From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dickman v. Union Railway Company of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Mar 13, 1929
133 Misc. 710 (N.Y. App. Term 1929)

Opinion

March 13, 1929.

Appeal from the Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Ninth District.

Lind Marks [ Hyman J. Fliegel of counsel], for the appellant.

Alfred T. Davison, for the respondent.


The moving papers claimed no irregularity in the proceedings on which the default judgment was based. Section 129 of the Municipal Court Code would, therefore, appear to preclude the opening of the default after a year had elapsed. ( Stoneware Elec. Stove Works v. Barrett, 117 Misc. 699; Scott v. Hemmer, 131 id. 474; affd., 223 A.D. 872.)

Respondent attempts to excuse its laches by proof of the fact that it had no notice of the default or judgment. While section 108 of the Civil Practice Act provides that such applications are to be made within one year after notice of the judgment, section 129 of the Municipal Court Code contains no reference to notice. It limits the time to one year after the entry of the judgment.

Order reversed, with ten dollar scosts, and judgment below reinstated.

All concur; present, LYDON, CALLAHAN and PETERS, JJ.


Summaries of

Dickman v. Union Railway Company of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Mar 13, 1929
133 Misc. 710 (N.Y. App. Term 1929)
Case details for

Dickman v. Union Railway Company of New York

Case Details

Full title:ALICE DICKMAN, Appellant, v. UNION RAILWAY COMPANY OF NEW YORK, Respondent

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department

Date published: Mar 13, 1929

Citations

133 Misc. 710 (N.Y. App. Term 1929)
233 N.Y.S. 331