Considine v. Rawl
New York Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtMurray T. Feideu, J.
The plaintiff moves for an order under rule 103 of the Rules of Civil Practice to strike out defendant’s answer and all affirmative defenses contained in said answer upon the ground that they are sham; and for an order under rule 109 to dismiss the affirmative defenses upon the ground that said defenses are insufficient in law. The plaintiff’s application for an order under rule 113 for summary judgment was withdrawn during the oral argument.
The complaint seeks a judgment to declare null and void a Mexican divorce obtained in 1946 by plaintiff against her former husband, John Francis…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Krause v. KrauseNew York Court of Appeals · 1940
- Starbuck v. . StarbuckNew York Court of Appeals · 1903
- Caldwell v. CaldwellNew York Court of Appeals · 1948
- Rosenbaum v. RosenbaumNew York Court of Appeals · 1955
- Querze v. QuerzeNew York Court of Appeals · 1943
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Tantleff v. TantleffNew York Supreme Court · 1969
- In re Estate of PringleSupreme Court of The Virgin Islands · 2000