Legal Opinion

Crimmins v. Polhemus

City of New York Municipal Court

Decided March 24, 1947PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtSkerritt, J.

This is a motion by defendant to compel the plaintiff, who filed a properly verified complaint in this conversion action, but served a copy with defective verification, to accept an unverified answer. The defective verification was in the usual form, dated and signed by a notary public, but omitted the plaintiff’s signature. The defendant, treating the complaint as unverified, served an unverified answer which was returned.

It appears'that the plaintiff, who is a lawyer, had no knowledge or notice of the defective verification until he received the notice of this motion. Within a few days…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Treen Motors Corp. v. Van PeltNew York Supreme Court · 1919
  2. Moran v. HelfAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1900
  3. Phonoharp Co. v. StobbeCity of New York Municipal Court · 1897
  4. Morris v. FowlerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1904
  5. Beglin v. People's Trust Co.New York County Court, Kings County · 1905

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Scaringe v. KinleyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989

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

Powered by the Exa API