Legal Opinion

Romaneck v. Bauer

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

Decided February 19, 1937PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Order denying motion by the plaintiffs to strike out as insufficient in law the complete and separate defense of the defendants William Duffy and Henry Bartels affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. This motion was made under subdivision 6 of rule 109 of the Rules of Civil Practice. Affidavits cannot be considered upon such a motion. (Monica Realty Corporation v. Bleecker, 229 App. Div. 184.) Whether or not plaintiff Catherine Romaneck was an employee of defendant Duffy and was injured in the course of her employment is a question to be determined upon the trial. Lazansky, P. J.,…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Monica Realty Corp. v. BleeckerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1930

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Mackay v. MackayNew York Supreme Court · 1952
  2. Krantz v. GarmiseAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1961
  3. Lundeby v. DotyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1939
  4. Sitowsky v. SitowskyAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1957

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

Powered by the Exa API