Legal Opinion
Schneidman v. Steckler
New York Supreme Court
Decided December 13, 1957PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBenjamin Brenner, J.
Motion by plaintiff for an order pursuant to rule 104 of the Rules of Civil Practice to strike the answer, including the separate defense set forth thereunder, as sham and frivolous, and pursuant to rule 109 of the Rules of Civil Practice to strike the separate defense for legal insufficiency. Plaintiff also seeks an order dispensing with the requirement that a statement of readiness be filed with the note of issue.
The action is one for partition of certain realty which is occupied by Service Candy Co., Inc., under a lease expiring in 1962.
The answer contains denials and a separate defense.…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Mandel v. LiebmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1951
- Satterlee v. . KobbeNew York Court of Appeals · 1903
- Buschmann v. McDermottAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1913
- Gise v. Brooklyn Society for Prevention of Cruelty to ChildrenNew York Court of Appeals · 1933
- Zwerdling v. BentNew York Court of Appeals · 1943
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Koehler v. KoehlerNew York Supreme Court · 1999
- Yeshiva University v. EdelmanNew York Supreme Court · 1958