Legal Opinion
Muldoon v. Mid-Bronx Holding Corp.
New York Supreme Court
Decided January 8, 1941PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHofstadter, J.
The plaintiffs may not move for summary judgment in an action for a declaratory judgment as such action is not one enumerated in rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice. *701(Lederer v. Wise Shoe Company, 276 N. Y. 459.) While the plaintiffs may move for summary relief on the counterclaim of the defendant also for a declaratory judgment, they have not done so on this application. However, there is no substantial dispute of fact raised by the pleadings and the court may rule on the motion and cross-motion (without regard to the moving affidavits) for judgment on the pleadings under rule 112.
The…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Lederer v. Wise Shoe Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1938
- Irving Trust Co. v. HughesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1933
- In re City of New York to Acquire Title to East Twenty-Ninth StreetAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1936
- In re the City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1933
- In re the General Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors of Margolis & MeadowAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1937
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Black River Regulating District v. Adirondack League ClubNew York Supreme Court · 1952
- Muldoon v. Mid-Bronx Holding Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1941
- Ackerman v. City of New YorkNew York Supreme Court · 1951