Legal Opinion

Imperatrice v. Imperatrice

New York Court of Appeals

Decided July 16, 1948PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Per curiam

Since the first cause of action, sounding in equity, is valid and since defendants’ motion under rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice seeks dismissal of the entire complaint, the motion was properly denied. (See Advance Music Corp. v. American Tobacco Co., 296 N. Y. 79, 84; Eidlitz v. Fischbach & Moore, Inc., 239 App. Div. 483, 486; Fusco v. Brooks, 263 App. Div. 845.) We neither consider nor pass upon the sufficiency of the other causes of action,' nor the nature of the judgment to which plaintiff may be entitled.

The order should be affirmed, costs. The question certified should be…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Advance Music Corp. v. American Tobacco Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1946
  2. Eidlitz v. Fischbach & Moore, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1933
  3. Fusco v. BrooksAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1941

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. City of Albany v. McMorranNew York Supreme Court · 1962
  2. Matter of FarrellNew York Court of Appeals · 1948
  3. Kriger v. Industrial Rehabilitation Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1959
  4. Simmons v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'nDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1955
  5. Solazzo v. OcchinoNew York Supreme Court · 1957

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API