Flushing Manor, Inc. v. Hotkin
234 A.D. 716
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 15, 1931·Published·Cited by 3 cases
Opinion
Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. This [717]*717court has held that under rule 104 of the Rules of Civil Practice, affidavits may be used on a motion to strike out an answer as sham. (Liberty Investing Corp. v. Huntington Investing Corp., 224 App. Div. 867.) Rule 112 of the Rules of Civil Practice is not applicable to the state of facts presented here, and reference thereto in the notice of motion and the order is disregarded as immaterial. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Kapper, Carswell and Davis, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Flushing Manor, Inc. v. Hotkin, 234 A.D. 716 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1931).
234 A.D. 716 (Flushing Manor, Inc. v. Hotkin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. v. City of New York
247 A.D. 163 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1936)
Brod v. Supreme Dress Co.
243 A.D. 622 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1935)
Roman Ornamental Plastering Corp. v. Fidelity & Deposit Co.
239 A.D. 848 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1933)