Case ID: ny-st-rep_31/html/0405-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Thomas J. Clute, App’lt, v. Richard Mahon et al., Resp’ts.
    
      (New York Superior Court, General Term,
    
    
      Filed May 5, 1890.)
    
    Default—When will not be opened.
    On motion to open a .default it appeared that the attorney left the room before the case was called, leaving “ some one in attendance to answer in case it was called;” that he was gone about fifteen minutes, and on his return learned that the case was dismissed on motion of defendants’ attorney, but the name of such representative was not given, nor was it shown that plaintiff was ready or intended to go to trial. Held, that the motion was properly denied.
    Appeal by plaintiff from an order denying his motion to open a default.
    
      T. J. Clute, for app’lt; John Hardy, for resp’ts.
   Per Curiam.

It does not appear that the judge, in denying plaintiff’s motion below, did not exercise properly the discretion he was bound to use upon such a motion. The plaintiff, who was an attorney, left the court room a short time before the case was called, “leaving some one in attendance at court to answer should the case be called during his (deponent’s) absence.” The plaintiff was absent from court about fifteen minutes, and “upon his return he learned that his case was dismissed on motion of defendants” attorney.” This does not show any excuse. It is vague. It does not assert even that the plaintiff was ready and intended to go to trial. It does not give the name of plaintiff’s representative in his absence and show what that representative did or the immediate circumstances of the dismissal of the complaint. ■

The order should be affirmed, with costs.

Sedgwick, Oh. J., Freedman and O’G-orman, JJ., concur.