Legal Opinion

Security Finance Co. v. Stuart

New York Supreme Court

Decided October 8, 1927PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRippey, J.

On September 13, 1927, plaintiff served motion papers for summary judgment under rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice, the notice specifying that such motion should be heard at the Hornell term commencing September 19, 1927. On September 17, 1927, defendants served an amended answer and now claim . they have a right to do so under section 244 of the Civil Practice Act and thereby defeat a hearing upon the motion. So far as material that section reads: “ Within twenty days after the service of a notice of a motion addressed to the pleading, the pleading may be once amended by the party, of…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Knowles v. . City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1903
  2. Hanna v. . MitchellNew York Court of Appeals · 1923
  3. H. C. King Motor Sales Corp. v. AllenAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1924
  4. Rodger v. BlissNew York Supreme Court · 1927

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Gramatan National Bank & Trust Co. v. PenneyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1952
  2. Miorin v. MiorinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1939
  3. Security Finance Co. v. StuartAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1929
  4. Platt v. RoseNew York Supreme Court · 1955
  5. Erie Commercial Corp. v. ThenAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1940

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