Comerford v. Sands
New York Supreme Court
Motion to strike from answer two counterclaims contained therein on the grounds: (a) That same are improperly united; (b) that they are irrelevant, redundant and tend to prejudice and embarrass a fair trial of this action; (c) that neither of such counterclaims is one which may be properly introduced in the action.
1Opinion of the CourtSawyer, J.
This complaint alleges that plaintiff is the owner in fee of certain premises, therein described, upon which until October 15, 1920, defendant had, for certain reasons and purposes, temporarily been; that upon that day by mutual consent of the parties, those reasons and purposes were terminated, but that, without plaintiff’s consent, defendant still continues in possession and withholds same from plaintiff.
The answer, after certain denials and defenses, contains two counterclaims; the first based upon alleged fraudulent representations, said to have been made by plaintiff to defendant to…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- France & Canada Steamship Corp. v. Berwind-White Coal Mining Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1920
- Blake v. EldredNew York Supreme Court · 1858
3Cited by1 opinion
- Fleming v. JacksonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1928