Niagara Falls Power Co. v. Halpin
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
Hefferuae", J.
Subsequently to the commencement of this action respondents moved to dismiss the complaint, pursuant to rule 106 of the Buies of Civil Practice, on the ground that it appears on the face thereof that the court has neither jurisdiction of the person of the defendants nor of the subject of the *238action. From an adverse determination of the Albany Special Term of the Supreme Court appellant has come to this court.
In its order dismissing the complaint the Special Term also denied appellant’s motion for an injunction pendente lite against respondents. We are not presently concerned…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Marbury v. MadisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1803
- Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1937
- New York Foreign Trade Zone Operators, Inc. v. State Liquor AuthorityNew York Court of Appeals · 1941
- International Paper Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Richfield Oil Corp. v. City of SyracuseNew York Court of Appeals · 1942
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Niagara Falls Power Co. v. WhiteNew York Court of Appeals · 1944
- Sohn v. CalderonNew York Court of Appeals · 1991
- People v. DarlingAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1975
- Kay-Fries, Inc. v. MartinoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1980
- Seaman v. FedourichNew York Supreme Court · 1965
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.