Legal Opinion
Lupo v. Columbia Manicure Manufacturing Co.
New York Supreme Court
Decided August 8, 1956PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMatthew M. Levy, J.
This is a motion by the defendants under rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice to dismiss each of three causes of action set forth in the complaint on the ground of insufficiency on its face; or, in the alternative, under rule 102, to require the service of an amended complaint making it more definite or certain in respect of the matters enumerated in the defendants’ notice of motion.
The plaintiff is the administratrix (with the will annexed) of S. Quentin Lupo, deceased. The first cause is leveled only against the defendant Columbia Manicure Manufacturing Co., Inc., and seeks specific…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Kalmanash v. SmithNew York Court of Appeals · 1943
- Emmeluth v. . H.B. AssociationNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
- American Surety Co. v. RosenthalNew York Supreme Court · 1954
- Avey v. Town of BrantNew York Court of Appeals · 1934
- Villard v. MoyerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1908
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- The First National Bank of Cincinnati v. Sidney Pepper, Elsie W. Cox, Defendants-Cross-Claimants-Appellants, Modern Talking Picture Service, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1972
- Acoustic Chemical Corp. v. GottlobNew York Supreme Court · 1960
- The First National Bank of Cincinnati v. Sidney Pepper, Elsie W. Cox, Defendants-Cross-Claimants-Appellants, Modern Talking Picture Service, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1972