Family Finance Corp. v. National Surety Corp.

180 Misc. 496, 42 N.Y.S.2d 102, 1943 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1952
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided May 19, 1943·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Memorandum: Per Curiam.

A contingent or hypothetical pleading is improper. Such a pleading does not either deny or confess and avoid, as required by statute. (Stroock Plush Co. v. Talcott. 129 App. Div. 14.)

Order modified by granting1 plaintiff’s motion to strike out the first and second defenses in answer, with leave to serve an amended answer within five days after service of order entered hereon, and as modified affirmed, without costs.

Hammer, Shientag and Hecht, JJ., concur.

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

Family Finance Corp. v. National Surety Corp., 180 Misc. 496, 42 N.Y.S.2d 102, 1943 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1952 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1943).

180 Misc. 496 (Family Finance Corp. v. National Surety Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

General Aniline & Film Corp. v. Bayer Co.
113 N.E.2d 844 (New York Court of Appeals, 1953)