Legal Opinion

Rose v. Sun Oil Co.

New York Supreme Court

Decided September 23, 1953PublishedCited by 1 opinion

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

  1. Laird v. . CartonNew York Court of Appeals · 1909
  2. Addiss v. SeligNew York Court of Appeals · 1934
  3. Orinoco Realty Co. v. . BandlerNew York Court of Appeals · 1922
  4. Claim of Kaplan v. Kaplan Knitting Mills, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1928
  5. Hession v. Sari CorporationNew York Court of Appeals · 1940

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Lykudis v. DanialNew York Supreme Court · 1955

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API