Legal Opinion

David J. Hodder & Son, Inc. v. Pennetto

New York Supreme Court

Decided December 21, 1961Published

1Opinion of the CourtJames D. Hopkins, J.

The defendant Adelaide Pennetto moves for several forms of relief: (1) directing the defendant Frank M. Pennetto to be examined before trial; (2) directing that defendant produce for inspection and discovery a certain deed, and permitting the moving defendant, her attorneys, and handwriting expert to make photographs thereof; (3) striking out the first and second counterclaims and cross complaints in the reply of the defendant Frank M. Pennetto, on the grounds that they are insufficient in law, and may not be interposed in the action.

The pleadings are somewhat complicated. The plaintiff (who…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Ostrowe v. LeeNew York Court of Appeals · 1931
  2. Chapman v. DickAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1921
  3. Brown v. MackNew York Supreme Court · 1945
  4. Roberts v. PrattNew York Supreme Court · 1940
  5. Campbell v. Cunningham Natural Gas Corp.New York Supreme Court · 1937

2 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