Legal Opinion
O'Hara v. Derschug
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided March 18, 1931PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Per curiam
The practice rule (Rules Civ. Prac. rule 90) which requires each separate cause of action in a complaint to be separately stated and numbered is for the benefit of the defendant. Its purpose is to require the complaint to be in such form that the defendant may make his denials with clearness and certainty and also to aid the defendant in his preparations for trial. (Stabilimento Metallurgico Ligure v. Joseph, 189 App. Div. 173; Glover v. Holbrook, Cabot & Rollins Corp., Id. 328.) The rule formulates a practice regulation, the enforcement of which rests largely in the discretion of the Special…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Goldberg v. . UtleyNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
- Stabilimento Metallurgico Ligure v. JosephAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1919
- Brown-Duffy Goatskin Corp. v. HenkelAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1925
3Cited by14 opinions
- Crawford Music Corp. v. American Record Corp.New York Supreme Court · 1939
- North American Iron & Steel Co. v. LefkowitzNew York Supreme Court · 1959
- Arel, Inc. v. Optics Manufacturing Corp.New York Supreme Court · 1962
- Bradford v. 27 East 38th Street Realty Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1957
- Medin v. De Gennaro, New York County Courts1956
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.