Bates v. 55 & 57 East 65th Street Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bates v. 55 & 57 East 65th Street Corp.

249 A.D. 119, 291 N.Y.S. 211, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5050

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

DecidedNovember 27, 1936

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 249 A.D. 119 (Bates v. 55 & 57 East 65th Street Corp.) 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

Bates v. 55 & 57 East 65th Street Corp., 249 A.D. 119, 291 N.Y.S. 211, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5050 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In the two affirmative defenses which plaintiff attacks it is alleged that a deposit agreement executed by the owner of a proprietary lease covering a co-operative apartment was intended to modify the proprietary lease “ to the extent that the two were inconsistent.” The deposit agreement was admittedly executed on the same day as the proprietary lease and pursuant to its terms. It is quite apparent that the deposit agreement did not give to defendant any - greater rights than were reserved under the express provisions of the proprietary lease, and that an allegation of a contrary intent is sham and frivolous.

The counterclaim is patently insufficient. It does not contain a plain and concise statement of the material facts on which the defendant relies. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 241.) It merely contains a statement of generalities, which, unless read in conjunction with the complaint, are meaningless. Furthermore, defendant sets forth that “ at the time of the sale of the shares of the capital stock standing in the name of the plaintiff, * * * the plaintiff was indebted to the defendant for rentals overdue and unpaid ” and for “ redecoration and repairs.” There is no allegation that anything is presently due to the defendant from the plaintiff and the absence of an averment to that effect is fatal. (Allen v. Patterson, 7 N. Y. 476; Rodgers & Hagerty, Inc., v. Brunswick M. C. Corp., 188 App. Div. 272.)

Accordingly, the order should be reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements, and plaintiff’s motion granted to the extent of striking from the answer the first and second separate and distinct defenses, and dismissing the counterclaim, with leave, however, to the defendant to serve an amended answer within ten days after service of order, upon payment of said costs.

Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Untermyer and Cohn, JJ.

Order unanimously reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion granted to the extent of striking from the answer the first and second separate and distinct defenses, and dismissing the counterclaim, with leave, however, -to the defendant to serve an amended answer within ten days after service of order upon payment of said costs.

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

Per Curiam.

In the two affirmative defenses which plaintiff attacks it is alleged that a deposit agreement executed by the owner of a proprietary lease covering a co-operative apartment was intended to modify the proprietary lease “ to the extent that the two were inconsistent.” The deposit agreement was admittedly executed on the same day as the proprietary lease and pursuant to its terms. It is quite apparent that the deposit agreement did not give to defendant any - greater rights than were reserved under the express provisions of the proprietary lease, and that an allegation of a contrary intent is sham and frivolous.

The counterclaim is patently insufficient. It does not contain a plain and concise statement of the material facts on which the defendant relies. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 241.) It merely contains a statement of generalities, which, unless read in conjunction with the complaint, are meaningless. Furthermore, defendant sets forth that “ at the time of the sale of the shares of the capital stock standing in the name of the plaintiff, * * * the plaintiff was indebted to the defendant for rentals overdue and unpaid ” and for “ redecoration and repairs.” There is no allegation that anything is presently due to the defendant from the plaintiff and the absence of an averment to that effect is fatal. (Allen v. Patterson, 7 N. Y. 476; Rodgers & Hagerty, Inc., v. Brunswick M. C. Corp., 188 App. Div. 272.)

Accordingly, the order should be reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements, and plaintiff’s motion granted to the extent of striking from the answer the first and second separate and distinct defenses, and dismissing the counterclaim, with leave, however, to the defendant to serve an amended answer within ten days after service of order, upon payment of said costs.

Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Untermyer and Cohn, JJ.

Order unanimously reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion granted to the extent of striking from the answer the first and second separate and distinct defenses, and dismissing the counterclaim, with leave, however, -to the defendant to serve an amended answer within ten days after service of order upon payment of said costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D. 119, 291 N.Y.S. 211, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5050, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bates-v-55-57-east-65th-street-corp-nyappdiv-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack