From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Swanson v. Alter

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Oct 18, 1956
5 Misc. 2d 523 (N.Y. App. Term 1956)

Opinion

October 18, 1956

Appeal from the City Court of the City of New York, County of New York, JAMES E. MULCAHY, J.

Leonard M. Henkin for appellants.

Melvel W. Snitow for respondent.


Plaintiff failed to set forth a satisfactory explanation for the long delay in the trial of the action or for his failure to move promptly to vacate the dismissal after his default. The Appellate Division maintains a firm attitude against unwarranted delay in prosecuting cases. ( A.R. Hyde Sons v. Roller Derby Skate Co., 1 A.D.2d 942.)

The retention of the check for the costs imposed as a condition for opening the default without depositing it for collection, is not a bar to this appeal under all the circumstances here.

The order opening the default was, in the face of the lack of due diligence without adequate reason therefor, improvidently made and should be reversed, and the plaintiff's motion denied.

The order should be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied.

EDER, HECHT and TILZER, JJ., concur.

Order reversed, etc.


Summaries of

Swanson v. Alter

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Oct 18, 1956
5 Misc. 2d 523 (N.Y. App. Term 1956)
Case details for

Swanson v. Alter

Case Details

Full title:WALLY SWANSON, Respondent, v. SAMUEL ALTER et al., Doing Business as THE…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department

Date published: Oct 18, 1956

Citations

5 Misc. 2d 523 (N.Y. App. Term 1956)
158 N.Y.S.2d 827

Citing Cases

Carmichael v. General Electric Company

We hold that only the appeal of Jandous should be dismissed. ¶ The general rule is that a party who accepts…