Legal Opinion

Monclova v. Arnett

New York Court of Appeals

Decided May 23, 1957PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Per curiam

In granting leave to appeal to this court the Appellate Division, Second Department, certified the following question: “ Was the order of this Court entered January 3, 1956, properly made? ”

That order had reversed so much of the order made at Special Term as had denied respondents’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint, consisting of three alleged causes of action for insufficiency pursuant to rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice, by dismissing the first two causes of action with permission to the plaintiff to replead as to the second cause of action. It allowed the third cause of action…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Somerby v. BuntinMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1875
  2. Hart v. HartAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1919

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. The Guinness-Harp Corporation v. Jos. Schlitz Brewing CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1980
  2. Payroll Express Corporation, Cross-Appellee v. The Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1981
  3. 75 Christopher Street Corp. v. FurmanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1988
  4. Becker v. RosenbergDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1989
  5. Birnbaum v. SchulerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1977

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API