Legal Opinion

Rockefeller v. Hein

New York Supreme Court

Decided May 9, 1941PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHallinan, J.

Two motions: (a) By the defendant appearing specially, to vacate the summons and (b) by the plaintiff to amend it.

It appears that the defendant was served on April 11, 1941, with a printed form of summons from which was omitted the name of the defendant. The blank spaces are filled in in the same handwriting but no defendant whatsoever is designated, the space therefor being blank. On the reverse side of the summons and in the same handwriting there is the name of the plaintiff, the attorney’s name and address; but in a different handwriting the following appears above the word “ Defendant: ”…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Bowler v. EnnisAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1899

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Schwartzberg v. StateNew York Court of Claims · 1983
  2. Tamburo v. P & C Food Markets, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1971
  3. In re Lyndell C. R.New York City Family Court · 1980

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

Powered by the Exa API