From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rosenblum v. Harrington

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 1, 1926
218 App. Div. 740 (N.Y. App. Div. 1926)

Opinion

October, 1926.

Present — Kelly, P.J., Jaycox, Manning, Young and Lazansky, JJ.


Motion to resettle order denied, with ten dollars costs to abide the event. After our decision in this action the defendant should have been permitted to interpose an answer, setting up as a defense the matters which he urged as a reason for vacating the proceedings previously had. The defendant should now be permitted to do this, and the plaintiff, through her attorney, expresses her entire willingness that this should be done. The court can then determine the action upon common-law evidence.


Summaries of

Rosenblum v. Harrington

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 1, 1926
218 App. Div. 740 (N.Y. App. Div. 1926)
Case details for

Rosenblum v. Harrington

Case Details

Full title:MOLLY ROSENBLUM, Respondent, v. JOHN F. HARRINGTON, Appellant

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

Date published: Oct 1, 1926

Citations

218 App. Div. 740 (N.Y. App. Div. 1926)