Legal Opinion

Timely Drive-in Cleaning Corp. v. Jacobs

New York Supreme Court

Decided July 14, 1950PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtElbert T. Gallagher, J.

Plaintiffs move to strike out iefenses and the counterclaim contained in the answer for insufficiency and also to strike certain allegations on the ground that they are sham, frivolous, irrelevant, redundant, repetitious and otherwise improper.

The arguments raised by plaintiffs will be considered in the order in which they are taken up in the memorandum submitted in support of the motion.

Where facts are alleged in the complaint and denied in the answer, the facts upon which the denial is based may and often must be pleaded by way of affirmative defense. That is so obvious as to require no…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Spaulding v. First National BankAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1924
  2. Spaulding v. First National BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1924
  3. General Investment Corp. v. AddinsellAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1938
  4. Brand v. GrometNew York Supreme Court · 1956
  5. Becker v. Hercules Foundries, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1942

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Madu, Edozie & Madu, P.C. v. Socketworks Ltd. NigeriaDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2010
  2. Hikita v. Nichiro Gyogyo Kaisha, Ltd.Alaska Supreme Court · 1986

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

Powered by the Exa API