Emden v. Martin Automatic Fishing Reel Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Emden v. Martin Automatic Fishing Reel Co.

10 A.D.2d 603, 195 N.Y.S.2d 749, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12195

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

DecidedJanuary 15, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 10 A.D.2d 603 (Emden v. Martin Automatic Fishing Reel 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

Emden v. Martin Automatic Fishing Reel Co., 10 A.D.2d 603, 195 N.Y.S.2d 749, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12195 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Order insofar as it denies defendant’s motion for summary judgment affirmed, and in all other respects order reversed and plaintiff’s motion denied, without costs of this appeal to either party. Memorandum: Special Term struck out the allegations of paragraphs Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth of the amended answer. Paragraphs Sixth and Seventh state in substance that plaintiff’s alleged contingent fee agreement is invalid under the regulations of the United States Treasury Department. Although it does not clearly appear that these regulations apply to the contingent fee contract in question, it is likewise not clear that they might not apply. The plaintiff’s motion was to strike certain defenses under rule 103 of the Rules of Civil Practice as irrelevant and redundant and tending to prejudice and delay the fair trial of the action. We do not find that they will have such an effect and we see no harm in permitting them to remain in the answer pending the development of the facts. As to paragraphs Eighth and Ninth, the essence of which is that the plaintiff, not an attorney, was engaged in the practice of law in his alleged services rendered to the defendant, we also find that these defenses should remain until the facts are fully developed. They may apply. (See Matter of New York County Lawyers Assn. [Bercu], 273 App. Div. 524, affd. 299 N. Y. 728; Realty Appraisals Co. v. Astor-Broadway Corp., 5 A D 2d 36, 38; 9 A. L. R. 2d 797.) The motion for summary judgment by the defendant was properly denied because there were material issues of fact. All concur. (Appeal from an order of Herkimer County Court striking out certain paragraphs of defendant’s amended answer, and denying defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment.) Present — Williams, P. J., Goldman, Halpern, McClusky and Henry, JJ. [6 Misc 2d 348.]

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

Order insofar as it denies defendant’s motion for summary judgment affirmed, and in all other respects order reversed and plaintiff’s motion denied, without costs of this appeal to either party. Memorandum: Special Term struck out the allegations of paragraphs Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth of the amended answer. Paragraphs Sixth and Seventh state in substance that plaintiff’s alleged contingent fee agreement is invalid under the regulations of the United States Treasury Department. Although it does not clearly appear that these regulations apply to the contingent fee contract in question, it is likewise not clear that they might not apply. The plaintiff’s motion was to strike certain defenses under rule 103 of the Rules of Civil Practice as irrelevant and redundant and tending to prejudice and delay the fair trial of the action. We do not find that they will have such an effect and we see no harm in permitting them to remain in the answer pending the development of the facts. As to paragraphs Eighth and Ninth, the essence of which is that the plaintiff, not an attorney, was engaged in the practice of law in his alleged services rendered to the defendant, we also find that these defenses should remain until the facts are fully developed. They may apply. (See Matter of New York County Lawyers Assn. [Bercu], 273 App. Div. 524, affd. 299 N. Y. 728; Realty Appraisals Co. v. Astor-Broadway Corp., 5 A D 2d 36, 38; 9 A. L. R. 2d 797.) The motion for summary judgment by the defendant was properly denied because there were material issues of fact. All concur. (Appeal from an order of Herkimer County Court striking out certain paragraphs of defendant’s amended answer, and denying defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment.) Present — Williams, P. J., Goldman, Halpern, McClusky and Henry, JJ. [6 Misc 2d 348.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.2d 603, 195 N.Y.S.2d 749, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12195, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/emden-v-martin-automatic-fishing-reel-co-nyappdiv-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack