City of Yonkers v. Moore

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

City of Yonkers v. Moore

235 A.D. 793

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

DecidedApril 15, 1932

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 235 A.D. 793 (City of Yonkers v. Moore) 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

City of Yonkers v. Moore, 235 A.D. 793 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Order reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and defendants’ motion granted, with ten dollars costs, on the ground that the defendants had the right to serve an amended answer as of course before the decision of the motion pending to strike out the answer and dismiss the counterclaim. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 244; Brooks Brothers v. Tiffany, 117 App. Div. [794]*794470; Dorf v. Corsa, 163 N. Y. Supp. 602; Woolson Spice Co. v. Columbia Trust Co., 110 Misc. 353; Hall v. Galban & Co., 164 App. Div. 873.) The rule would be otherwise had the motion been decided before amendment. (Huebshman v. Kugelman, 193 App. Div. 702; Lee v. Jacob, 38 id. 531; Ross v. Ross, 25 Hun, 642.) Lazansky, P. J., Kapper, Hagarty, Tompkins and Davis, JJ., concur.

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

Order reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and defendants’ motion granted, with ten dollars costs, on the ground that the defendants had the right to serve an amended answer as of course before the decision of the motion pending to strike out the answer and dismiss the counterclaim. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 244; Brooks Brothers v. Tiffany, 117 App. Div. [794]*794470; Dorf v. Corsa, 163 N. Y. Supp. 602; Woolson Spice Co. v. Columbia Trust Co., 110 Misc. 353; Hall v. Galban & Co., 164 App. Div. 873.) The rule would be otherwise had the motion been decided before amendment. (Huebshman v. Kugelman, 193 App. Div. 702; Lee v. Jacob, 38 id. 531; Ross v. Ross, 25 Hun, 642.) Lazansky, P. J., Kapper, Hagarty, Tompkins and Davis, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

235 A.D. 793, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-yonkers-v-moore-nyappdiv-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack