Legal Opinion

E. Sonnenschein & Co. v. Roberts Companies of America, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided October 31, 1947Published

1Per curiam

The fraudulent misrepresentations alleged in the counterclaim are not claimed to be part of a general plan and should, therefore, be separately stated and numbered (People v. Tweed, 63 N. Y. 194, 200; Wesiheimer v. Musliner, 46 App. Div. 96; McCaffrey v. Halsey Stuart & Co., Inc., 250 App. Div. 429, 430). The new matter pleaded is obviously not matter constituting a defense to plaintiff’s complaint. The order, so far as appealed from, should be modified by directing defendant separately to state and number its three causes of action in the event that it chooses to replead them and by granting…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. People of the State of N.Y. v. . TweedNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
  2. Westheimer v. MuslinerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1899
  3. McCaffrey v. Halsey Stuart & Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1937

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

Powered by the Exa API