Parkson v. Hurok

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Parkson v. Hurok

13 A.D.2d 471, 212 N.Y.S.2d 431, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12053

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

DecidedMarch 16, 1961

StatusPublished

This text of 13 A.D.2d 471 (Parkson v. Hurok) 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

Parkson v. Hurok, 13 A.D.2d 471, 212 N.Y.S.2d 431, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12053 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, entered on March 3, 1960, insofar as it denies defendants’ motion for an order, pursuant to rule 112 of the Rules of Civil Practice, dismissing the first cause of action in the complaint, unanimously affirmed on the law and on the facts, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. The defendants’ arguments in the main could properly be presented and considered on a motion for summary judgment and are not pertinent on this motion, addressed as it is, solely to the sufficiency of the complaint which must be determined on the basis of the allegations thereof read in the light of the hill of particulars. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

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

— Order, entered on March 3, 1960, insofar as it denies defendants’ motion for an order, pursuant to rule 112 of the Rules of Civil Practice, dismissing the first cause of action in the complaint, unanimously affirmed on the law and on the facts, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. The defendants’ arguments in the main could properly be presented and considered on a motion for summary judgment and are not pertinent on this motion, addressed as it is, solely to the sufficiency of the complaint which must be determined on the basis of the allegations thereof read in the light of the hill of particulars. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 A.D.2d 471, 212 N.Y.S.2d 431, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12053, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parkson-v-hurok-nyappdiv-1961.