Bradford v. 27 East 38th Street Realty Corp.

By reason of the fact that the defendant has served an answer, defendant is not entitled to any relief under rule 90 of the Rules of Civil Practice. (Brown-Duffy Goatskin Corp. v. Henkel, 211 App. Div. 342; O’Hara v. Derschug, 232 App. Div. 31.) The special circumstances relied on by defendant do not excuse the implied waiver of relief resulting from the service of the answer. It was unnecessary to interpose an answer in order to oppose a motion for a temporary injunction. Such opposition could take the form of an affidavit. Under rules 102 and 103 of the Rules of Civil Practice, an amended…