Hardecker v. Klem

249 A.D. 736, 291 N.Y.S. 671, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5804
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 4, 1936·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Action for damages as a consequence of the collision of two automobiles. Order of the County Court of Suffolk county in so far as it denies defendant’s motion to vacate the ex parte order and to strike out the reply reversed on the law, without costs, and motion granted to that extent, without costs. In all other respects the order is affirmed, without costs. A reply may only be required to be served on defendant’s • motion. The ex parte order, therefore, was unauthorized and the service of a reply pursuant thereto was likewise unauthorized. Since the appeal, however, presents no practical question in these particulars because the new matter is deemed to be controverted by traverse or avoidance (Civ. Prae. Act, § 243), no costs are allowed. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Davis and Johnston, JJ., concur.

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

Hardecker v. Klem, 249 A.D. 736, 291 N.Y.S. 671, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5804 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

249 A.D. 736 (Hardecker v. Klem) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ferrainolo v. Prudential Insurance
12 A.D.2d 720 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1960)
Forrest v. Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Co
195 Misc. 12 (New York Supreme Court, 1949)