Legal Opinion

Neivel Realty Corp. v. Prudence Bonds Corp.

City of New York Municipal Court

Decided April 26, 1934PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtO’Rourke, J.

This case was tried upon an agreed statement of facts. The defendant contends that the court is precluded from considering the facts because, heretofore, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment under rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice was denied by one of the justices of this court. It is urged that, upon the aforesaid motion, there was no disputed question of fact; that the denial of the motion established the law of the case and is an adjudication of the sufficiency of the defense, which, by the agreed statement of facts, is conceded to be true.

In order to succeed on a motion for…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Dwan v. MassareneAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1922
  2. Enoch v. BrandonNew York Court of Appeals · 1928
  3. Brown v. . Cleveland Trust Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1922
  4. Cunningham v. Pressed Steel Car Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1933
  5. Rothschild v. . Rio Grande Western Railway CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1900

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Mobil Oil Corp. v. Town of HuntingtonNew York Supreme Court · 1975
  2. Snelwar v. SnelwarNew York Supreme Court · 1961

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

Powered by the Exa API