Legal Opinion
Schulman v. Modern Industrial Bank
New York Supreme Court
Decided June 19, 1942PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtEder, J.
This is a motion under rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice to dismiss the complaint upon the ground that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Two causes of action are set forth.
The action is to recover damages for alleged malicious prosecution of the plaintiff in that the defendant instituted two suits against him in the Municipal Court wherein it was sought to hold him liable as comaker upon a promissory note. It is alleged that the actions were utterly groundless; that the defendant .caused a summons and complaint to be served upon the plaintiff who…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Halberstadt v. . New York Life Ins. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1909
- Campbell v. New York Evening Post, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1927
- Sachs v. WeinsteinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1924
- Black v. JudelsohnAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1937
- Barry v. Third Avenue RailroadAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1900
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Lincoln First Bank v. SiegelAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1977
- Munson Line, Inc. v. GreenDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1946
- Salamanca Trust Co. v. McHughAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
- Meisels v. J. C. A. Trading Corp.New York Supreme Court · 1947
- Schulman v. Modern Industrial BankAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1943
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.