Andrews v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Andrews v. City of New York

254 A.D. 168, 4 N.Y.S.2d 386, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6370

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

DecidedMay 13, 1938

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 254 A.D. 168 (Andrews v. City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Andrews v. City of New York, 254 A.D. 168, 4 N.Y.S.2d 386, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6370 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Quite apart from the question as to whether affidavits might properly be considered on the motion to strike out all the matter contained in defendant’s answer as sham under rules 103 and 104 of the Rules of Civil Practice (Fleischer v. Terker, 259 N. Y. 60, 62; Monica Realty Corporation v. Bleecker, 229 App. Div. 184), defendant should be afforded an opportunity of fully developing upon a trial, the facts relative to the actual functioning and administration of the State Insurance Fund for the purpose of sustaining its contention that neither the fund nor the real estate here involved is property of the State within the meaning of section 4 of the Tax Law.

The order should be affirmed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements.

Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.

Order unanimously affirmed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Quite apart from the question as to whether affidavits might properly be considered on the motion to strike out all the matter contained in defendant’s answer as sham under rules 103 and 104 of the Rules of Civil Practice (Fleischer v. Terker, 259 N. Y. 60, 62; Monica Realty Corporation v. Bleecker, 229 App. Div. 184), defendant should be afforded an opportunity of fully developing upon a trial, the facts relative to the actual functioning and administration of the State Insurance Fund for the purpose of sustaining its contention that neither the fund nor the real estate here involved is property of the State within the meaning of section 4 of the Tax Law.

The order should be affirmed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements.

Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.

Order unanimously affirmed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D. 168, 4 N.Y.S.2d 386, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6370, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/andrews-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack