Opinion · Nylaw New York

FREEDMAN v. GOLDFARB, 208 App. Div. 707 (1923)

NATHAN FREEDMAN & Another, Copartners, etc., Appellants, v. PHILIPGOLDFARB & Others, Respondents., 208 A.D. 707 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department. 1923)

Type: Opinion
Court: New York
Jurisdiction: New York
Date: 1923-01-01
Topic: general

FREEDMAN v. GOLDFARB, 208 App. Div. 707 (1923) NATHAN FREEDMAN and Another, Copartners, etc., Appellants, v. PHILIPGOLDFARB and Others, Respondents.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department. December, 1923.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed FREEDMAN v. GOLDFARB, 208 App. Div. 707 (1923). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

FREEDMAN v. GOLDFARB,208 App. Div. 707(1923)

NATHAN FREEDMAN and Another, Copartners, etc., Appellants, v. PHILIP

GOLDFARB and Others, Respondents.

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

December, 1923.

Order affirmed, without costs. We are of opinion that the Special Term had jurisdiction to entertain the motion in the circumstances shown by the record, and that it was not an abuse of discretion to open the default. Neither at Special Term nor in this court did the appellants seek the imposition of terms as a condition of opening the default; hence, we affirm the order without terms. Kelly, P.J., Rich, Kelby, Young and Kapper, JJ., concur.