Bornstein v. Diskin
Bornstein v. Diskin
84 N.Y.S. 248
(New York Supplement)
Opinion of the Court
It not appearing from the moving papers that the attorney for the defendant who did appear and answer was the attorney for the codefendants, or that he knew the latter had not been served, or that the case was not at issue by default, the court below properly refused to strike the case from its calendar, and its order must be affirmed, with costs.
Order affirmed, with costs. All concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.