Legal Opinion

Pennsylvania Exchange Bank v. Lasko

New York Supreme Court

Decided January 30, 1957PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMatthew M. Levy, J.

After a six-day trial before Judge and jury — resulting in the cause being set for retrial because of the jury’s disagreement — the plaintiff has made certain motions, as follows: (1) for summary judgment on six of the seven causes of action (Rules Civ. Prae., rule 113); (2) to strike the defendant’s answer as to the remaining count alleged in the complaint as sham and frivolous and directing an inquest (Rules Civ. Prae., rule 103); and (3) to conform the pleadings to the proof. Voluminous affidavits and exhibits are 'submitted, as well as a portion of the trial transcript. (Parenthetically,…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Chysky v. . Drake Brothers Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1923
  2. Turner v. Edison Storage Battery Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1928
  3. Hanna v. Florence Iron Co. of WisconsinNew York Court of Appeals · 1918
  4. Grobman v. FreimanNew York Supreme Court · 1956
  5. Bentrovato v. CrinnionNew York Supreme Court · 1954

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. In Re MendenhallUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. Oregon · 1980
  2. Federal Savings & Loan Insurance v. C & J Oil Co.District Court, W.D. Virginia · 1986
  3. W. R. Simmons & Associates Research, Inc. v. Ziff-Davis Publishing Co.New York Supreme Court · 1962

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

Powered by the Exa API