From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mudano v. Sichko

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 1, 1929
227 App. Div. 670 (N.Y. App. Div. 1929)

Opinion

July, 1929.


Order of the County Court of Nassau county denying motion of defendants Nicholas Sechko (sued as Nicholay A. Sichko) and Kate Sechko to dismiss complaint, to strike out answer of defendant Smith Alford Co., Inc., and to vacate undertakings affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to plaintiffs, respondents. The motion is made by Bushel and Gottlieb, who claim to be attorneys for appellants. The record shows that Mr. Hyman Bushel was the attorney for appellants when the answer was served. Mr. Bushel was appointed a city magistrate and no other attorney has been substituted. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 240.) Lazansky, P.J., Kapper, Seeger, Carswell and Scudder, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Mudano v. Sichko

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 1, 1929
227 App. Div. 670 (N.Y. App. Div. 1929)
Case details for

Mudano v. Sichko

Case Details

Full title:R. MUDANO and SALVATORE FARINELLA, Copartners Doing Business as R. MUDANO…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jul 1, 1929

Citations

227 App. Div. 670 (N.Y. App. Div. 1929)

Citing Cases

Thomas v. Thomas

The phrase "or otherwise becomes disabled" is of very broad scope and includes any act or condition which…

Hendry v. Hilton

It connotes a force majeure, such as death, mental or physical incompetency, induction into military service,…