Majority
p. 736KORENMAN et al. v. BLAUNER et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate Term. December 16, 1908.) Argued before GIEGERICH, HENDRICK, and FORD, JJ.
Headnote
Judgment (§ 147[1] )—Default Judgment—Vacation Properly Refused.Vacation of a default judgment was properly refused, where defendants did not explain why they answered “Ready” day after day, holding plaintiff and his witnesses in court, when they knew, or should have known, of the absence of the witness now claimed to be material.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Judgment. Cent. Dig. § 257; Dec. Dig. § 147.*]
Appeal from City Court of New York, Trial Term.
Action by Hyman Korenman and another against Julius Blauner and another. From an order refusing to set aside a default judgment, defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
p. 737
Wilkenfeld & Bitterman (Joseph Wilkenfeld, of counsel), for appellants.
Henry Kuntz, for respondents.
Even if the papers showed a meritorious defense, which they do not, the motion to open the default was properly denied because of the defendants’ inexcusable and unexplained conduct in answering the case “Ready” day after day, and holding the plaintiff and his witnesses in court, during all of which time the defendants had, or should have had, knowlédge of the absence of the witness who they now claim was necessary to their defense.
Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.