Legal Opinion

Lee v. Mack

New York Supreme Court

Decided January 30, 1959PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHoward A. Zeller, J.

This is a motion made pursuant to rules 109 (suhd. 6) and 103 of the Rules of Civil Practice hy plaintiff Glenn 0. Lee to strike the second affirmative defense from the answer of defendants Ernest W. Mack and Helen R. Legg on the respective grounds that the asserted defense is insufficient in law, and that it is irrelevant, sham, frivolous and prejudicial to a fair trial of plaintiff’s actions.

Plaintiff’s complaint adequately sets forth two causes of action for work, labor, services and materials furnished by plaintiff at defendants’ request for certain repairs and improvements to real…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. United States v. City of New BritainSupreme Court of the United States · 1954
  2. Glass City Bank v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
  3. Wayne S. Marteney v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1957
  4. Herlihy v. Phoenix Assurance Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1948
  5. Bensinger v. DavidsonDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1956

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Greenough v. Prairie Dog Ranch, Inc.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1975
  2. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. a TO Z EQUIPMENT CORP.District Court, E.D. New York · 1966

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

Powered by the Exa API