Legal Opinion
Marcus v. Knitzer
New York Supreme Court
Decided February 7, 1938PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtLockwood, J.
The plaintiff moves for summary judgment under rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice, or in the alternative to strike out the defendant’s answer pursuant to rule 104.
The action is based upon section 44 of the Personal Property Law to set aside a sale of certain merchandise and fixtures by Frieda Magolowitz to the defendant.
In the complaint it is alleged that on May 3, 1937, Frieda Magolowitz delivered her promissory note to the plaintiff in the sum of $75, payable August 3, 1937, for value received, and that *10no part of such sum has been paid; that on or about August 30, 1937, Frieda…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Wright v. . HartNew York Court of Appeals · 1905
- Klein v. . MaravelasNew York Court of Appeals · 1916
- Brod v. Supreme Dress Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1935
- Heilmann v. PowelsonNew York Supreme Court · 1917
3Cited by6 opinions
- Seedman v. FriedmanCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1942
- Carl Ahlers, Inc. v. DingottNew York Supreme Court · 1940
- Adrian Tabin Corp. v. Climax Boutique, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1974
- Adrian Tabin Corp. v. Climax Boutique, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1972
- Adrian Tabin Corp. v. Climax Boutique, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1972
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.