Legal Opinion

Buffalo Foundry & Machine Co. v. S. M. Frank & Co.

New York Supreme Court

Decided November 3, 1938PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtVaughan, J.

Motion under rule 103 of the Rules of Civil Practice to strike out from defendants’ answer the first separate and distinct defense as sham and false in fact, and upon the further ground that the same would tend to hinder, delay and embarrass the plaintiff in the fair trial of said action.

The action is brought to recover damages to and loss of use of plaintiff’s automobile sustained in collision with defendants’ automo-: *1000bile. Defendants set up in their answer as an affirmative defense that plaintiff was insured against such collision damage by a policy of the Pawtucket Mutual Fire Insurance…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Luckenbach v. W. J. McCahan Sugar Refining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1918
  2. Adler v. Bush Terminal Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1937
  3. Lee v. BarrettCity of New York Municipal Court · 1913
  4. Zaidens v. SalterCity of New York Municipal Court · 1932

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Yezek v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western RailroadNew York Supreme Court · 1941
  2. Purdy v. McGarityNew York Supreme Court · 1941
  3. Butera v. DonnerNew York Supreme Court · 1942

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

Powered by the Exa API