Legal Opinion

Halleran v. Manzione

New York Supreme Court

Decided February 17, 1938PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCuff, J.

An objection is raised that this motion, not having been made within ten days after service of the answer, should not be entertained. Actually three years have passed since joinder of issue. The situation is unique. This action was moved to trial a few months ago. As a preliminary step at the trial defendant moved to strike out the defenses now under attack. After hearing a part of the argument the justice presiding declared a mistrial so that a motion could be made at Special Term. The trial justice was thoroughly justified in taking that action because the motion involved novel questions,…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Clason v. . BaldwinNew York Court of Appeals · 1897
  2. Peterson v. . MartinoNew York Court of Appeals · 1914
  3. Pratt Institute v. . City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1905
  4. City of New York v. Trustees of Sailors' Snug HarborAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1903
  5. Fulton v. . KrullNew York Court of Appeals · 1910

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. 149-155 Swan Street Corp. v. City of BuffaloNew York Supreme Court · 1954
  2. Kiamesha Development Corp. v. Guild Properties, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1957
  3. Halleran v. ManzioneAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1939
  4. Yates v. FaganNew York Supreme Court · 1946

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

Powered by the Exa API