Friedman v. Universal Mercerizing Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Friedman v. Universal Mercerizing Co.

238 A.D. 805

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

DecidedFebruary 15, 1933

StatusPublished

This text of 238 A.D. 805 (Friedman v. Universal Mercerizing 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

Friedman v. Universal Mercerizing Co., 238 A.D. 805 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment of the City Court of White Plains dated July 7, 1932, reversed on the law and the facts, without costs, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs. The scope of the defenses herein is measured by the affidavits. They present questions of fact which may be resolved on a trial only, since they rest upon conflicting oral contentions of the parties. The application to be relieved from failure to comply with section 368 of the Civil Practice Act should be made to the trial court. The defendant is likewise remitted to the trial court for relief with respect to amendment of her answer. Appeal from order denying motion to resettle dismissed. Lazansky, P. J., Kapper, Hagarty, Carswell and Tompkins, JJ., concur.

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

Order and judgment of the City Court of White Plains dated July 7, 1932, reversed on the law and the facts, without costs, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs. The scope of the defenses herein is measured by the affidavits. They present questions of fact which may be resolved on a trial only, since they rest upon conflicting oral contentions of the parties. The application to be relieved from failure to comply with section 368 of the Civil Practice Act should be made to the trial court. The defendant is likewise remitted to the trial court for relief with respect to amendment of her answer. Appeal from order denying motion to resettle dismissed. Lazansky, P. J., Kapper, Hagarty, Carswell and Tompkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 A.D. 805, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/friedman-v-universal-mercerizing-co-nyappdiv-1933.