Legal Opinion

Hayman v. Janik

New York Supreme Court

Decided September 23, 1960PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMatthew J. Jasen, J.

This is a motion by plaintiff to (1) strike out paragraph Second of defendants’ answer (wherein they denied any knowledge or information relative to certain paragraphs in the complaint) as sham and frivolous within the meaning of rule 103 of the Rules of Civil Practice and (2) grant judgment to the plaintiffs pursuant to rules 113, 256 and 257 of the Rules of Civil Practice and (3) dismiss the counterclaim pursuant to subdivisions 5 and 6 of rule 109 of the Rules of Civil Practice.

Plaintiffs instituted an action to foreclose a real property mortgage. Defendants had given a bond and mortgage…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Simon v. . VanderveerNew York Court of Appeals · 1898
  2. Schierloh v. KellyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1938
  3. Baecht v. HevesyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1906
  4. Grace v. BowdenAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1896
  5. Schechter v. RosenNew York Supreme Court · 1957

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Blumenfeld v. R. M. Shoemaker Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
  2. North Triphammer Development Corp. v. Ithaca AssociatesDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1989

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

Powered by the Exa API