Legal Opinion

Andrews v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided May 13, 1938PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

Quite apart from the question as to whether affidavits might properly be considered on the motion to strike out all the matter contained in defendant’s answer as sham under rules 103 and 104 of the Rules of Civil Practice (Fleischer v. Terker, 259 N. Y. 60, 62; Monica Realty Corporation v. Bleecker, 229 App. Div. 184), defendant should be afforded an opportunity of fully developing upon a trial, the facts relative to the actual functioning and administration of the State Insurance Fund for the purpose of sustaining its contention that neither the fund nor the real estate here involved is…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Fleischer v. TerkerNew York Court of Appeals · 1932
  2. Monica Realty Corp. v. BleeckerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1930

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. State Insurance Fund v. BoylandAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1953
  2. Quinn v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceNew York Supreme Court · 1946

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

Powered by the Exa API