Wood v. Furtick — 39 N.Y.S. 173

Majority

p. 173

(16 Misc. Rep. 289.)

WOOD v. FURTICK.

(City Court of New York, General Term.

March 16, 1896.)

Headnote

General Appearance.

Defendant’s attorney having made a motion to set aside levies under an attachment, and signed the motion papers as “attorney for defendant and assignee,” his appearance, not containing any limitation, will be held general.

Appeal from special term.

Action by George R. Wood against Irving Furtick. From an order denying motion to have a judgment for plaintiff vacated, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued before FITZSIMONS and O’DWYER, JJ.

Lawrence Godkin, for appellant.

Baggott & Ryall, for respondent.

The defendant’s attorney, on behalf of the defendant, who desired to have certain levies made under a warrant of attachment granted herein vacated and set aside, made a motion to set aside such levies. He subscribed said motion papers as follows: “Lawrence Godkin, Attorney for Defendant and Assignee.” In our opinion, he having so appeared, it must be said that such appearance without limitation, or stating that it was special, and for the motion only, was general, and entitled plaintiff to enter the judgment as was done herein, and that the same was duly and regularly entered.

The order appealed from must be affirmed, with costs.