Legal Opinion

British Brokers, Ltd. v. Wolford

New York Supreme Court

Decided June 15, 1961PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAbraham N. Geller, J.

Defendant moves to open his default to answer and vacate the judgment entered upon said default.

*998The default was suffered apparently by reason of some com fusion on the part of defendant’s attorney as to certain procedural steps. Just prior to the last day to answer the complaint he served a notice of motion and affidavit returnable 11 days later for an order directing plaintiffs to add defendant’s sister as an indispensable party defendant. Since no order to show cause was obtained, staying proceedings of plaintiffs until the determination of said motion and extending defendant’s time to…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Sterling Industries, Inc. v. Ball Bearing Pen Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1949
  2. Ace Tackless Corp. v. FuhrmanNew York Supreme Court · 1959

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Anmaco, Inc. v. BohlkenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1993
  2. Lloydona Peters Enterprises, Inc. v. DoriusUtah Supreme Court · 1983
  3. British Brokers, Ltd. v. WolfordNew York Supreme Court · 1961
  4. Lloydona Peters Enterprises, Inc. v. DoriusUtah Supreme Court · 1983

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

Powered by the Exa API