Seidenberg v. Duboff & Davies, Inc.
City of New York Municipal Court
1Opinion of the CourtGeismar, J.
This is a motion for summary judgment and to strike out defendant’s answer. Since affidavits are submitted by both sides upon the facts as well as the sufficiency of the defenses, it is to be concluded that the motion is made under both rules 112 *168and 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice. The complaint alleges that plaintiff, as foreman of the upholstering department in defendant’s plant, rendered services at an agreed wage per week for a period stated on account of which there is now due and owing to him the sum of $1,625, for which he demands judgment. The answer, after general denials,…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Surace v. DannaNew York Court of Appeals · 1928
- Erie Railroad v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
- Austin v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1932
- Matter of StrykerNew York Court of Appeals · 1899
- Cato v. Grendel Cotton MillsSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1925
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- McMenamy v. Director, Division of TaxationNew Jersey Tax Court · 1981
- Watson v. Prentice-Hall, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1975
- LaJuett v. Coty Machine Co., New York County Courts1934
- People v. VetriNew York Court of Special Session · 1954
- Strom v. PrinceCity of New York Municipal Court · 1935