Legal Opinion
Millspaugh v. Paduch
City of New York Municipal Court
Decided June 21, 1940PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the CourtFaulkner, J.
This is an application for judgment on the pleadings, based upon the contention that the counterclaim does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
The motion is to be denied where there can be a recovery on any theory. (DeRosa v. Bloch, 150 Misc. 160.)
In this case the only issue is that raised by the counterclaim. Damages are sought because the plaintiff, as owner of crops, although requested so to do, did not file a claim against the city of Middletown for damages done to crops raised by the defendant Anelia Paduch under a share crop agreement with the plaintiff. According…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Taylor v. . BradleyNew York Court of Appeals · 1868
- Foote v. ColvinNew York Supreme Court · 1808
- Harris v. . FrinkNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Hudson v. . Glens Falls Ins. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1916
- Palmer & Singer Manufacturing Co. v. Barney Estate Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1912
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Reynolds v. PatrickNew York Supreme Court · 1950