Legal Opinion
Fitzgerald v. Primmer
New York Supreme Court
Decided September 1, 1955PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHamm, J.
Daniel Primmer, the defendant in Action No. 2, has moved for leave to serve an amended answer containing a counterclaim. The motion is granted but the court by granting *404this motion is not ruling on the merits of the proposed amended pleading (Partridge v. Fidelity & Cas. Co., 213 App. Div. 8, 9; Guaranty Trust Co. v. Schmidt, 187 App. Div. 561, 563; Anderson v. New York Central R. R. Co., 284 App. Div. 64, 65; Mercy v. University Gardens Property Owners Assn., 208 Misc. 412).
The defendant also moves to examine before trial the plaintiff in Action No. 2. The action is for wrongful death…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Anderson v. New York Central RailroadAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1954
- Partridge v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1925
- Cameron v. Rochester & Syracuse RailroadNew York Supreme Court · 1925
- Guaranty Trust Co. v. SchmidtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1919
- Lowenberg v. StaffordNew York Supreme Court · 1953
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Limerick v. FitzgeraldNew York Supreme Court · 1961
- Berlin v. Vassar Bros. HospitalNew York Supreme Court · 1984