Legal Opinion

Williams v. Board of Education

New York Supreme Court

Decided November 13, 1943PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGarvin, J.

This is a motion by plaintiff to strike out paragraph “ VI ” of defendant’s answer on the ground that it does not set forth facts sufficient to constitute a defense to this action.

The suit is brought to recover for personal injuries claimed to have been sustained by plaintiff, a regular student at Boys’ High School, Brooklyn, N. Y., when a glass panel of a classroom door in the school building fell out and struck him.

The answer denies generally the material allegations of the complaint and sets forth an affirmative defense which reads in these words: “ VI. For and as a defense, the defendant…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Russo v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1932
  2. Gilbert v. RothschildNew York Court of Appeals · 1939
  3. Frehe v. SchildwachterNew York Court of Appeals · 1942
  4. Kamerman v. CurtisNew York Court of Appeals · 1941
  5. Caulston v. RosenfeldNew York Supreme Court · 1940

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Márquez v. Tribunal Superior de San JuanSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1962
  2. Kunstsammlungen Zu Weimar v. ElicofonCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1982
  3. Kunstsammlungen Zu Weimar v. ElicofonCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1982
  4. Klosky v. DickMichigan Supreme Court · 1960
  5. Feldman v. City of New YorkCity of New York Municipal Court · 1948

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

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

Powered by the Exa API