Golding v. Weissman
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
Concur — Eager, J. P., Markewieh and Bastow, JJ.; McGivern and Steuer, JJ., dissent in the following memorandum by Steuer, J.: Had the moving defendants contented themselves with a simple denial of the allegations of the complaint, we would in all likelihood have concurred with the majority. The failure of the plaintiff to come forward with evidentiary facts and the undue accommodation afforded defendants on plaintiff’s application to examine defendants before trial provide little excuse for this failure. However, the explanations vouchsafed by the defendants in their pleadings and affidavits…
2Cited by12 opinions
- Piccolo v. De CarloAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1982
- Alston v. Golub Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1987
- Behar v. OrdoverAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1983
- In re the Estate of BetzAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1978
- Katz Agency, Inc. v. Heftel Broadcasting Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1977
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.