Legal Opinion

Berger v. Lasot

New York Supreme Court

Decided October 22, 1936PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

McLaughlin (Charles B.), J.

This motion is made under rule 109 of the Rules of Civil Practice to strike out defenses contained in an answer as insufficient in law. The pertinent allegations of the complaint are as follows:

That originally an action was commenced in the City Court against the defendant Alex Lasot, that action being upon a note; that while said action was pending and before judgment, Alex Lasot fraudulently transferred certain assets to a corporation formed for that express purpose, and that in this corporation his wife was made the chief stockholder. The judgment creditor now…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Crouse v. . McVickarNew York Court of Appeals · 1912
  2. Herring v. . N.Y., L.E. W.R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1887
  3. Campbell v. HeilandAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1900
  4. Collins v. BurrAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1924

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Griffith v. Bank of New YorkDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1944
  2. Phelan v. Carstens, Linnekin & WilsonCity of New York Municipal Court · 1946
  3. Ryan v. EdgertonNew York Supreme Court · 1941

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

Powered by the Exa API