Miltenberg & Samton, Inc. v. Overseas Investors, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Miltenberg & Samton, Inc. v. Overseas Investors, Inc.

24 A.D.2d 949, 265 N.Y.S.2d 585, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2780

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

DecidedDecember 16, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 24 A.D.2d 949 (Miltenberg & Samton, Inc. v. Overseas Investors, Inc.) 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

Miltenberg & Samton, Inc. v. Overseas Investors, Inc., 24 A.D.2d 949, 265 N.Y.S.2d 585, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2780 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered on May 20, 1964, granting defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, with $30 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the motion denied, with leave to defendant to serve an amended answer, if so advised, within 10 days after service of a copy of the order to be entered hereon with notice of entry. The issue raised by defendant’s motion has not been satisfactorily resolved by the affidavits and should therefore be reserved for the trial. To that end an amendment of the answer to allege that plaintiff is not the real party in interest or otherwise entitled to sue appears the appropriate procedure (see Reed v. Hopkins, 10 A D 2d 897). Concur — Botein, P. J., Babin, McNally, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.

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

Order entered on May 20, 1964, granting defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, with $30 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the motion denied, with leave to defendant to serve an amended answer, if so advised, within 10 days after service of a copy of the order to be entered hereon with notice of entry. The issue raised by defendant’s motion has not been satisfactorily resolved by the affidavits and should therefore be reserved for the trial. To that end an amendment of the answer to allege that plaintiff is not the real party in interest or otherwise entitled to sue appears the appropriate procedure (see Reed v. Hopkins, 10 A D 2d 897). Concur — Botein, P. J., Babin, McNally, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.2d 949, 265 N.Y.S.2d 585, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2780, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miltenberg-samton-inc-v-overseas-investors-inc-nyappdiv-1965.