Kronman v. Kronman
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Per curiam
On this motion addressed to the sufficiency of the defenses it was error to dismiss the complaint in the absence of a counter-motion seeking such relief. (Bernard v. Chase National Bank, 233 App. Div. 384.) Of course, if the complaint was insufficient, the court was not required to pass upon the defenses.' They would be good enough for a bad complaint. (Bernard v. Chase National Bank, supra.) However, we deem the first cause of action sufficient. It is predicated upon a material false representation.
The second cause of action, however, is insufficient. It may not be sustained upon the theory…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Lapides v. LapidesNew York Court of Appeals · 1930
- Durham v. DurhamAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1904
- Bernard v. Chase National BankAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1931
- Warshor v. WarshorNew York Supreme Court · 1927
3Cited by8 opinions
- Croce v. CroceNew York Supreme Court · 1950
- Kiebler v. KieblerNew York Supreme Court · 1939
- Cutler v. MetcalfeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1944
- Rosen v. Colonial Cooperative InsuranceNew York Supreme Court · 1966
- Fun Fair Park, Inc. v. Gabor Holding Corp.New York Supreme Court · 1959
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.