Hartburg v. Bullock
New York Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtG-. Robert Wither, J.
Plaintiff has moved under rule 103 of the Rules of Civil Practice to strike out of the amended answer herein the denials contained in paragraph “ 3 ” thereof and each and every affirmative defense as sham, frivolous, and unnecessary. In her complaint plaintiff seeks a judgment for partition of a house and lot located at No. 103 Dartmouth Street, Rochester, New York, title to which was taken in the names of plaintiff and her mother, the defendant, Frances Maud Bullock, “ as joint tenants with the right of survivorship ” by deed dated August 7,1943 and recorded the same day in Monroe County…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Wood v. . RabeNew York Court of Appeals · 1884
- Woolley v. . StewartNew York Court of Appeals · 1918
- McKinley v. . HessenNew York Court of Appeals · 1911
- Canda v. . TottenNew York Court of Appeals · 1898
- Purdy v. McGarityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1941
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- 2458 Bedford Avenue Realty Corp. v. BernardNew York Supreme Court · 1962