Earl S. Peed Organization, Inc. v. Gray

This motion by plaintiff for leave to reargue the original motion which had resulted in an order vacating a warrant of attachment for having failed to serve a summons and complaint on defendant personally and in time, as required by statute, is granted.

Plaintiff singularizes that a misthought in the construction of the law had led to the adverse ruling of its original motion.

Its contention is that ‘ ‘ where as here, a solicitor in Canada has undertaken in writing to accept and enter an Appearance for the defendant herein, all pursuant to Canadian statute, as was done in this case, it is…