WOLCHOK v. SUCHMAN & FEINBLUM


298 A.D.2d 309 (2002)

748 N.Y.S.2d 497

CAROL L. WOLCHOK, Respondent-Appellant, v. SUCHMAN & FEINBLUM et al., Appellants-Respondents.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.

Decided October 29, 2002.


Plaintiff's attorney provides satisfactory proof that plaintiff did not default on defendants' motion for a preclusion order, namely, his affirmation of service of papers in opposition and a cross motion for a protective order on March 3, 2001, and a receipt from his lawyers service stating that such papers were filed on March 13, 2001. Plaintiff's attorney also provides a satisfactory explanation for not having appeared in court for the oral argument that defendants assert...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases