Cukor v. Rothman

City of New York Municipal Court

Cukor v. Rothman

78 Misc. 588, 139 N.Y.S. 1015

DecidedDecember 15, 1912

StatusPublished

This text of 78 Misc. 588 (Cukor v. Rothman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering City of New York Municipal Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cukor v. Rothman, 78 Misc. 588, 139 N.Y.S. 1015 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Green, J.

Pursuant to the stipulation made by counsel in open court I shall consider this motion as one for judgment on the pleadings instead of a motion to compel a reply to the first defense in the answer. The agreement set forth in extenso in the answer is concededly the agreement upon which plaintiff predicates his cause of action, and, whether that agreement be interpreted to be a partnership agreement between the parties to this action or an agreement for a division of the profits of the business in which they embarked, the fact, nevertheless, remains that an accounting is absolutely necessary to determine their respective rights therein. In view of such question necessarily arising this court has no jurisdiction of the cause of action, and I, therefore, grant the motion of defendant for judgment on the pleadings not upon the merits, but for want of jurisdiction in the court to try the issues herein involved.

Motion granted.

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

Green, J.

Pursuant to the stipulation made by counsel in open court I shall consider this motion as one for judgment on the pleadings instead of a motion to compel a reply to the first defense in the answer. The agreement set forth in extenso in the answer is concededly the agreement upon which plaintiff predicates his cause of action, and, whether that agreement be interpreted to be a partnership agreement between the parties to this action or an agreement for a division of the profits of the business in which they embarked, the fact, nevertheless, remains that an accounting is absolutely necessary to determine their respective rights therein. In view of such question necessarily arising this court has no jurisdiction of the cause of action, and I, therefore, grant the motion of defendant for judgment on the pleadings not upon the merits, but for want of jurisdiction in the court to try the issues herein involved.

Motion granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 Misc. 588, 139 N.Y.S. 1015, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cukor-v-rothman-nynyccityct-1912.