Majority
p. 6ROTHENBERG v. HERMAN. (Supreme Court, Appellate Term. May 23, 1905.) Argued before SCOTT, P. J., and TRUAX and DOWNING, JJ.
Headnote
Trial—Default-Relief.Where in the Municipal Court both parties appeared, and a dismissal was had because plaintiff was not prepared to go on, he might move for relief from his default.
. Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Thirteenth District.
Action by Nathan Rothenberg against Israel Herman. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
See 90 N. Y. Supp. 431 .
Stanislaus N. Tuckman, for appellant.
David W. Rockmore, for respondent.
The case presented on this appeal differs in its facts from Eichner v. Cohen, 91 N. Y. Supp. 357 . In that case neither party appeared, and the cause fell of its own weight. Here there was an appearance on behalf of both parties, and a^ dismissal because plaintiff was not prepared to go on. There is no reason why, in such a case, a plaintiff may not move in the Municipal Court, as he may in any other, to be relieved of his default.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.