Manfrida v. City of New Rochelle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Manfrida v. City of New Rochelle

52 A.D.2d 918, 384 N.Y.S.2d 1017, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12757

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

DecidedMay 17, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 52 A.D.2d 918 (Manfrida v. City of New Rochelle) 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

Manfrida v. City of New Rochelle, 52 A.D.2d 918, 384 N.Y.S.2d 1017, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12757 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action inter alia to recover damages for breach of contract (the first cause of action), defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated October 24, 1975, as (1) denied the branch of their motion which sought to dismiss the first cause of action and (2) granted the branch of plaintiff’s cross motion which sought to strike their first affirmative defense. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements. Defendants’ motion, insofar as it sought to dismiss the first cause of action, was properly denied and plaintiff’s cross motion, insofar as it sought to strike the first affirmative defense, was properly granted. Cohalan, Acting P. J., Hargett, Damiani, Rabin and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

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

In an action inter alia to recover damages for breach of contract (the first cause of action), defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated October 24, 1975, as (1) denied the branch of their motion which sought to dismiss the first cause of action and (2) granted the branch of plaintiff’s cross motion which sought to strike their first affirmative defense. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements. Defendants’ motion, insofar as it sought to dismiss the first cause of action, was properly denied and plaintiff’s cross motion, insofar as it sought to strike the first affirmative defense, was properly granted. Cohalan, Acting P. J., Hargett, Damiani, Rabin and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.2d 918, 384 N.Y.S.2d 1017, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12757, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manfrida-v-city-of-new-rochelle-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack