Schneidman v. Steckler
New York Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtJames S. Brown, J.
Motion by plaintiff for an order, pursuant to rules 104 and 109 of the Buies of Civil Practice, respectively, striking the separate defense contained in defendant’s amended answer on the ground that it is sham and frivolous and on the further ground that the same is legally insufficient. The action is one for partition of certain realty.
The separate defense which is attacked on this motion alleges in substance that the plaintiff and defendant and their respective husbands had been, up to April, 1952, the sole officers, directors and stockholders of a business known as Service Candy Co., Inc.…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Chew v. . SheldonNew York Court of Appeals · 1915
- Satterlee v. . KobbeNew York Court of Appeals · 1903
- Parmelee v. . CameronNew York Court of Appeals · 1869
- Buschmann v. McDermottAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1913
- Obecny v. GoetzAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1907
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Jurdak v. FigueroaNew York Supreme Court · 1961