Hamer v. Flatto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hamer v. Flatto

250 A.D. 862, 296 N.Y.S. 832, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9450

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

DecidedApril 16, 1937

StatusPublished

This text of 250 A.D. 862 (Hamer v. Flatto) 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

Hamer v. Flatto, 250 A.D. 862, 296 N.Y.S. 832, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9450 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Order dated January 7, 1937, denying, except in so far as it is for an extension of time to answer, the motion of certain defendants to dismiss the complaint pursuant to subdivision 5 of rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice; to compel plaintiffs to separate the alleged causes of action pursuant to rule 102 of the Rules of Civil Practice; to strike out certain paragraphs of the complaint pursuant to rule 103 of the Rules of Civil Practice, and for other relief, affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, with leave to the moving defendants to answer within ten days from the entry of the order hereon. Appeal from order dated February 9, 1937, denying motion for a rehearing and reargument dismissed. No opinion. Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Davis, Johnston and Close, JJ., concur.

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

Order dated January 7, 1937, denying, except in so far as it is for an extension of time to answer, the motion of certain defendants to dismiss the complaint pursuant to subdivision 5 of rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice; to compel plaintiffs to separate the alleged causes of action pursuant to rule 102 of the Rules of Civil Practice; to strike out certain paragraphs of the complaint pursuant to rule 103 of the Rules of Civil Practice, and for other relief, affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, with leave to the moving defendants to answer within ten days from the entry of the order hereon. Appeal from order dated February 9, 1937, denying motion for a rehearing and reargument dismissed. No opinion. Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Davis, Johnston and Close, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D. 862, 296 N.Y.S. 832, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9450, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hamer-v-flatto-nyappdiv-1937.