Charles Offset Co. v. Hobart-McIntosh Paper Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Charles Offset Co. v. Hobart-McIntosh Paper Co.

192 A.D.2d 419, 596 N.Y.S.2d 68, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3841

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

DecidedApril 20, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 192 A.D.2d 419 (Charles Offset Co. v. Hobart-McIntosh Paper Co.) 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

Charles Offset Co. v. Hobart-McIntosh Paper Co., 192 A.D.2d 419, 596 N.Y.S.2d 68, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3841 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Fingerhood, J.), entered on or about February 19, 1992, which, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and the order of the same court and Justice, entered on or about June 18, 1992, which granted defendant’s motion for reargument and upon reargument adhered to its original determination, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant has waived the defense of lack of standing since it failed to assert the claim as an affirmative defense in its answer and waited over six years after issue was joined in this action to move to dismiss the complaint on that ground (CPLR 3211 [e]; see, Matter of Prudco Realty Corp. v Palermo, 60 NY2d 656, 657). We also note that plaintiff and Marketing Showcase were owned and managed by the same family, shared the same offices, and were merged in 1986. Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach and Kupferman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Fingerhood, J.), entered on or about February 19, 1992, which, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and the order of the same court and Justice, entered on or about June 18, 1992, which granted defendant’s motion for reargument and upon reargument adhered to its original determination, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant has waived the defense of lack of standing since it failed to assert the claim as an affirmative defense in its answer and waited over six years after issue was joined in this action to move to dismiss the complaint on that ground (CPLR 3211 [e]; see, Matter of Prudco Realty Corp. v Palermo, 60 NY2d 656, 657). We also note that plaintiff and Marketing Showcase were owned and managed by the same family, shared the same offices, and were merged in 1986. Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach and Kupferman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 A.D.2d 419, 596 N.Y.S.2d 68, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3841, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charles-offset-co-v-hobart-mcintosh-paper-co-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack