Stroock & Co. v. Lichtenthal, Inc.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Per curiam
We believe the defendant should be given an opportunity to frame his pleadings so as to present the alleged defenses and counterclaims set forth in the proposed amended answer. We do not, however, depart from our former opinion on the merits (224 App. Div. 19). The order should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the motion granted. Present — Dowling, P. J., Finch, McAvoy, Martin and O’Malley, JJ. Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- S. Stroock & Co. v. Joseph Lichtenthal, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1928
3Cited by5 opinions
- Albano v. MichaelsenNew York Supreme Court · 1958
- Black v. BlackNew York Supreme Court · 1961
- Clarson Construction Co. v. VespaNew York Supreme Court · 1959
- Hansen v. StormNew York Supreme Court · 1959
- Travlos v. Commercial Union of America, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1930