
    Michael Dietz, Respondent, v. Alfred Weisthal, Appellant.
    Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
    March 15, 1928.
    Trial — adjournment ■— actual engagement of attorney in trial in another court warranted adjournment.
    Defendant was entitled to an adjournment of his case in the Municipal Court of the City of New York since an affidavit presented to the court in the case stated that the counsel was actually engaged in a trial in the Supreme Court.
    
      Appeal by defendant from so much of an order of the Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Fourth District, as imposes upon defendant as a condition for opening his default that defendant deposit the amount of plaintiff’s judgment in the clerk’s office or furnish an undertaking.
    
      Becht & Glaser, for the appellant.
    
      Benjamin B. Weinberg, for the respondent.
   Per Curiam.

Defendant’s counsel having been actually engaged in the trial of a case in the Supreme Court and having presented an affidavit to the court, defendant was entitled to an adjournment.

The order opening the default is modified by striking out the terms imposed, and as so modified is affirmed, with ten dollars costs to appellant to abide the event.

All concur; present, Lydon, Levy and Crain, JJ.  