Legal Opinion
Meadow Brook National Bank v. Feraca
New York Supreme Court
Decided February 2, 1952PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMario Pittoni, J.
This is a motion pursuant to rules 103, 113 and 114 of the Buies of Civil Practice, to strike the answers and grant summary judgment to plaintiff on the ground that the denials are sham and the defenses insufficient in law.
The action is against defendants as guarantors of payment of loans made to two corporations.
*617(1) As to that portion seeking to strike the denials as sham: Paragraph 2 of the complaint alleges that the guarantee was made “ to induce Central Bank and Trust Co.” (later consolidated into plaintiff) to make loans and advances. Defendants admit execution of the instrument, but…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Imperator Realty Co. v. . TullNew York Court of Appeals · 1920
- Dahlstrom v. . GemunderNew York Court of Appeals · 1910
- Kirschbaum v. . EschmannNew York Court of Appeals · 1912
- Union Bank v. . Coster's ExecutorsNew York Court of Appeals · 1850
- Rochkind v. PerlmanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1908
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Becker Pretzel Bakeries, Inc. v. Universal Oven CompanyDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1968
- Congress Factors v. Malden Mills IncorporatedDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1971
- Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. SchuhmacherDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1984
- Central State Bank v. BotwinCivil Court of the City of New York · 1971
- Mohawk Agency, Inc. v. American Casualty Co.District Court, N.D. New York · 1964
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.