Legal Opinion

Monclova v. Arnett

New York Supreme Court

Decided August 14, 1957PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLloyd I. Herzka, J.

The defendants have moved to dismiss the first and third causes of action of the amended complaint pursuant to rule 106 of the Buies of Civil Practice on the ground of insufficiency. The plaintiff has cross-moved, pursuant to rule 109, to dismiss the defendants’ second and third *358affirmative defenses to the plaintiff’s second cause of action upon the ground that the defenses are legally insufficient.

The plaintiff originally served a complaint alleging three causes of action. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. Upon appeal, the first cause of action was upheld by the Court of Appeals…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Hornstein v. PodwitzNew York Court of Appeals · 1930
  2. Hornstein v. PodwitzAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1930
  3. McGowan v. McGowanNew York Supreme Court · 1950
  4. Kaufman v. Investors SyndicateNew York Supreme Court · 1933

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Drake America Corp. v. Speakman Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1988
  2. Becker v. RosenbergDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1989
  3. Gould v. PollackCivil Court of the City of New York · 1971

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

Powered by the Exa API