From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Macedo Soares, Inc. v. Guertzenstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 18, 1951
279 App. Div. 744 (N.Y. App. Div. 1951)

Opinion

December 18, 1951.

Present — Glennon, J.P., Dore, Cohn, Callahan and Shientag, JJ. [See post, p. 791.]


Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs to the respondent. We have given full consideration to the rule expressed in Feingold v. Walworth Bros. ( 238 N.Y. 446) with respect to the extent of the penalty to be imposed for failure of defendant to appear for examination before trial. We find, however, that the examination directed herein was sufficiently extensive to warrant striking the answer as a whole for failure of defendant to appear. No substantial issues remained upon which defendant might be heard.


Summaries of

Macedo Soares, Inc. v. Guertzenstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 18, 1951
279 App. Div. 744 (N.Y. App. Div. 1951)
Case details for

Macedo Soares, Inc. v. Guertzenstein

Case Details

Full title:MACEDO SOARES, INC., Respondent, v. JOSE GUERTZENSTEIN, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Dec 18, 1951

Citations

279 App. Div. 744 (N.Y. App. Div. 1951)