Legal Opinion

Sulzer v. Fontheim

New York Supreme Court

Decided January 16, 1939PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCollins, J.

The plaintiff’s motion for reargument is granted. The papers present an unusual situation and raise a novel question. The action was commenced eighteen years ago, and seeks recovery on promissory notes. Although the defendant defaulted in answering, no further proceedings were taken by the plaintiff during the eighteen years, and nothing was done in the action until the motion by the defendant’s administratrix (the defendant having died within the past year) to dismiss for failure to prosecute.

*553The plaintiff counters by pointing to the default and insists that the defendant has no standing to…

2Cited by3 opinions

  1. Palmer v. PalmerNew York City Family Court · 1969
  2. Lipschultz v. StateNew York Court of Claims · 1948
  3. Honor Brand Milling Co. v. RobinsonNew York Supreme Court · 1948

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API