Legal Opinion
Rosenbluth v. Sackadorf
New York Supreme Court
Decided December 29, 1947PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtFroessel, J.
Motion by defendants for an order, pursuant to rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice, dismissing the complaint herein for legal insufficiency, or, in the alternative, for an order, pursuant to rule 112 of the Rules of Civil Practice, for judgment on the pleadings. The allegations of fact stated in the complaint must be assumed to be true for the purposes of either branch of the motion (Locke v. Pembroke, 280 N. Y. 430; Staten Island Edison Corp. v. Maltbie, 270 App. Div. 55). Thus considered, the essential facts are as follows:
Since September 20, 1938, the plaintiff was a tenant occupying…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Ultramares Corp. v. ToucheNew York Court of Appeals · 1931
- Condon v. Associated Hospital ServiceNew York Court of Appeals · 1942
- Dyer v. Broadway Central BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1930
- Eaton, Cole Burnham Co. v. . AveryNew York Court of Appeals · 1880
- Verplanck v. . Van BurenNew York Court of Appeals · 1879
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Teare v. SussmanSupreme Court of Colorado · 1949
- Behrendt v. RassmussenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1951
- Alabiso v. SchusterAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1948
- Lyster v. BerberichNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1949
- Rosenbluth v. SackadorfAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1948
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.