Legal Opinion
Anderson v. Anderson
City of New York Municipal Court
Decided May 8, 1961PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtAbraham R. Margulies, J.
“ The function of summary judgment is to deal with issues and get at the real substance of the facts, about which there is no controversy which a judge could take seriously.” (Tripp, Guide to Motion Practice, p. 277.) This well-established rule was enunciated in County Transp. Co. v. Maltbie (191 Misc. 391). The motion is determined on all of the pleadings (Bobrose Developments v. Jacobson, 251 App. Div. 825) and the affidavits before the court. An attorney’s affidavit based upon documentary proof in his possession — copies of said proof being annexed to said affidavit — has been held to be…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Pennoyer v. NeffSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Commonwealth Ex Rel. McVay v. McVaySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1955
- Bobrose Developments, Inc. v. JacobsonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1937
- Henderson v. Van WagnerNew York Supreme Court · 1947
- County Transportation Co. v. MaltbieNew York Supreme Court · 1948
3Cited by3 opinions
- CMS Industries, Inc. v. L. P. S. International, Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1981
- Cahn v. CahnCivil Court of the City of New York · 1982
- Cms Industries, Inc. v. L. P. S. International, Ltd. And Sam C. Evans, Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, Etc. v. See International, Ltd., Stop-Loss Incorporated, Sam Evans v. Elmer Whitaker, Cms Industries, Inc., and Fred LangleyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1981