Hirschfeld v. Jamaica Savings Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hirschfeld v. Jamaica Savings Bank

257 A.D. 991, 13 N.Y.S.2d 643, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8841

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

DecidedJune 27, 1939

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 257 A.D. 991 (Hirschfeld v. Jamaica Savings Bank) 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

Hirschfeld v. Jamaica Savings Bank, 257 A.D. 991, 13 N.Y.S.2d 643, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8841 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for broker’s commissions, both plaintiff and defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to rule 112 of the Rules of Civil Practice. The defendant’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint was denied and the plaintiff’s motion to strike out the answer as insufficient in law was granted. Defendant appeals from the order denying its motion to dismiss the amended complaint and granting plaintiff’s motion to strike out the defendant’s answer, and from the judgment in favor of the plaintiff entered pursuant to such order. Order and judgment unanimously affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, (Amies v. Wesnofske, 255 N. Y. 156, 164; Haber v. Goldberg, 92 N. J. L. 367; 105 A. 874; Dermody v. New Jersey Realties, Inc. 101 N. J. L. 334; 128 A. 265.) Present — Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Taylor and Close, JJ.

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

In an action for broker’s commissions, both plaintiff and defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to rule 112 of the Rules of Civil Practice. The defendant’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint was denied and the plaintiff’s motion to strike out the answer as insufficient in law was granted. Defendant appeals from the order denying its motion to dismiss the amended complaint and granting plaintiff’s motion to strike out the defendant’s answer, and from the judgment in favor of the plaintiff entered pursuant to such order. Order and judgment unanimously affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, (Amies v. Wesnofske, 255 N. Y. 156, 164; Haber v. Goldberg, 92 N. J. L. 367; 105 A. 874; Dermody v. New Jersey Realties, Inc. 101 N. J. L. 334; 128 A. 265.) Present — Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Taylor and Close, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 A.D. 991, 13 N.Y.S.2d 643, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8841, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hirschfeld-v-jamaica-savings-bank-nyappdiv-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack