Rose v. Sun Oil Co.
New York Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtBrenner, J.
Although plaintiff states in his notice of motion that he seeks to strike out the separate defense in the answer of the corporate defendant “ as sham ” (i.e., factually false), pursuant to rule 103 of the Rules of Civil Practice, it is evident that the basis of the relief sought is that such defense is “ frivolous ” (i.e., insufficient in law). The notice of motion, in later language, couples both falsity in fact and law as the grounds relied upon. It may be treated, therefore, as a motion to strike the defense as frivolous.
This is a negligence action against third-party defendants. Plaintiff…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Laird v. . CartonNew York Court of Appeals · 1909
- Addiss v. SeligNew York Court of Appeals · 1934
- Orinoco Realty Co. v. . BandlerNew York Court of Appeals · 1922
- Claim of Kaplan v. Kaplan Knitting Mills, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1928
- Hession v. Sari CorporationNew York Court of Appeals · 1940
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Lykudis v. DanialNew York Supreme Court · 1955