Legal Opinion

Hardecker v. Klem

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided December 4, 1936PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Action for damages as a consequence of the collision of two automobiles. Order of the County Court of Suffolk county in so far as it denies defendant’s motion to vacate the ex parte order and to strike out the reply reversed on the law, without costs, and motion granted to that extent, without costs. In all other respects the order is affirmed, without costs. A reply may only be required to be served on defendant’s • motion. The ex parte order, therefore, was unauthorized and the service of a reply pursuant thereto was likewise unauthorized. Since the appeal, however, presents no practical…

2Cited by2 opinions

  1. Forrest v. Mutual Benefit Life Insurance CoNew York Supreme Court · 1949
  2. Ferrainolo v. Prudential InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1960

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

Powered by the Exa API