Majority
p. 17AMPEL v. SEIFERT et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate Term. January 7, 1904.) Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and GILDERSLEEVE and GREENBAUM, JJ.
Headnote
1. Costs-— Seodbitt—Application—Time.An application for security for costs must be made before answer, as a matter of right, or after answer, appealing to the court’s discretion, must be made promptly, after the discovery of facts, which satisfactorily explain why it was not made before answer.
¶ 1. See Costs, vol. 13, Cent. Dig. § 466.
Appeal from Special Term.
Action by Efriam Ampel against Wolf Seifert and another. From an order denying a motion to vacate an order directing plaintiff to deposit or file security for costs, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
See 84 N. Y. Supp. 122 .
Henry Kuntz, for appellant.
Kenneson, Crain, Emley & Rubino, for respondents.
It is well settled that an application for security for costs must be made before answer as a matter of right, or, after answer, appealing to the court’s discretion, must be made promptly after the discovery of facts, which satisfactorily explains why it was not made before answer. Segal v. Cauldwell, 22 App. Div. 95 , 47 N. Y. Supp. 839 ; Henderson v. McNally, 33 App. Div. 132 , 53 N. Y. Supp. 351 . Assuming that the defendants did not discover plaintiff’s nonresidence until the trial on March 16, 1903, no excuse is even sug
p. 18
gested for delaying the application for security until the middle of Sep- • tember, 1903.
Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements,- and motion granted, with $10 costs.
Cases cited
- Henderson, Hull & Co. v. McNally 33 App. Div. 132 p. 17