Micromatic Products, Inc. v. Frumit Realty Corp.
This text of 268 A.D. 972 (Micromatic Products, Inc. v. Frumit Realty Corp.) 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.
Opinion
The court at Special Term correctly held that the defense as pleaded was clearly insufficient in laVr. However the defense should also have been stricken out under rule 103 of the Rules of Civil Practice. The court should have considered the affidavits. (Zwerdling v. Bent, 264 App. Div. 195.) Accordingly the order appealed from should be reversed insofar as it denies the motion to dismiss the defense contained in paragraphs 3 to 8 of defendant’s answer, pursuant to rule 103 of the Rules of Civil Practice, and the said motion granted, and, insofar as said order grants the motion to dismiss the defense pursuant to subdivision 6 of rule .109 of the Rules of Civil Practice, it should be affirmed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements to the plaintiff. Settle order on notice. Present - Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Untermyer and Dore, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
268 A.D. 972, 52 N.Y.S.2d 575, 1944 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4476, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/micromatic-products-inc-v-frumit-realty-corp-nyappdiv-1944.