Sutton v. Duntley
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
Seaks, J.:
When this case was reached for trial at the Chautauqua Trial Term, the plaintiff moved to strike out the defendant’s answer as frivolous. This motion was improper in form, for such a motion must be noticed within twenty days from the service of the pleading to which the motion is addressed. (Rules Civ. Prac., rule 105.) In this case no notice was given, and more than twenty days had elapsed. It was, however, at that time open to the plaintiff to move for judgment on the pleadings, and as the relief sought on either motion would be practically the same, we treat the motion made as…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Dahlstrom v. . GemunderNew York Court of Appeals · 1910
- Thompson v. LumleyNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1877
- Hatch v. LuckmanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1913
- Hatch v. LuckmanNew York Supreme Court · 1909
- Bloch v. BlochAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1909
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- McClelland v. Climax Hosiery MillsNew York Court of Appeals · 1930
- Ayala v. BossNew York Supreme Court · 1983
- Brazos v. BrumidgeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1958
- Gise v. Brooklyn Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to ChildrenAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1932
- Loma Corp. v. WingNew York Supreme Court · 1924