Legal Opinion

Toll v. Friedman

New York Supreme Court

Decided September 30, 1946PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBotein, J.

Plaintiffs have moved, according to their notice

of motion, “ pursuant to Section 278 of the Civil Practice Act ”, “ for an order dismissing the defendant’s first affirmative defense and counterclaim for the reason that the defendant has no legal capacity to recover upon the same; that the counterclaim is not one which may be properly interposed in the action ”. The stated grounds for the motion indicate clearly that the motion, though not so characterized, is brought pursuant to subdivisions 2 and 4 of rule 109 of the Buies of Civil Practice. That rule is limited in operation to such defects…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Lightbody v. RussellNew York Court of Appeals · 1944
  2. Levan v. American Safety Table Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1927
  3. Goelet v. GoldsteinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1930
  4. Botts v. Mercantile Bank of MemphisAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1917
  5. Weinstein v. Ken-Wel Sporting Goods Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1930

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Mark v. PrenticeNew York Supreme Court · 1959
  2. Cooperstown Cattle Co. v. SmithAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1949

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

Powered by the Exa API