Legal Opinion

Samuelson v. Starr

New York Supreme Court

Decided March 28, 1961PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSamuel Rabin, J.

The defendants, except Rhoda Schwartz, move to dismiss the amended complaint on the ground that this court has no jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action or, in the alternative, on the ground of legal insufficiency.

Defendants’ initial argument that this amended complaint must be dismissed since it is “ exactly like ” the original which was dismissed by court order is without merit. The pleading now under consideration was timely served, as of course, prior to the determination of the motion addressed to the original complaint and, therefore, superseded it. (Volpe v. Manhattan Sav.…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Rogers v. Guaranty Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1933
  2. Clark v. DodgeNew York Court of Appeals · 1936
  3. Goldstein v. LightnerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1943
  4. North v. RinglingNew York Supreme Court · 1946
  5. Levy v. Pacific Eastern Corp.New York Supreme Court · 1934

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Broida v. BancroftAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
  2. Prescott v. Plant Industries, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1980
  3. In re DohringNew York Supreme Court · 1989

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

Powered by the Exa API