Petrova v. Roberts

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Petrova v. Roberts

216 A.D. 814

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

DecidedApril 15, 1926

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 216 A.D. 814 (Petrova v. Roberts) 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

Petrova v. Roberts, 216 A.D. 814 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Order denying motion to set aside and vacate service of summons and complaint reversed upon the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs, upon authority of Person v. Grier (66 N. Y. 124); Parker v. Marco (136 id. 585); Matthews v. Tufts (87 id. 568); Goldsmith v. Haskell (120 App. Div. 403); Powell v. Pangborn (161 id. 453); Howe v. Van Heusen (210 id. 796); Sampson v. Graves (208 id. 522). Kelly, P. J., Jaycox and Manning, JJ., concur; Kapper and Lazansky, JJ., dissent upon the ground that defendant, having invoked the judicial power of the State by bringing an action against plaintiff, who is a resident of the State, should not be permitted to avoid it when plaintiff seeks to sue him on a cause of action which could not be the subject of a counterclaim to defendant’s cause of action. The case presents an exception to the rule.

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

Order denying motion to set aside and vacate service of summons and complaint reversed upon the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs, upon authority of Person v. Grier (66 N. Y. 124); Parker v. Marco (136 id. 585); Matthews v. Tufts (87 id. 568); Goldsmith v. Haskell (120 App. Div. 403); Powell v. Pangborn (161 id. 453); Howe v. Van Heusen (210 id. 796); Sampson v. Graves (208 id. 522). Kelly, P. J., Jaycox and Manning, JJ., concur; Kapper and Lazansky, JJ., dissent upon the ground that defendant, having invoked the judicial power of the State by bringing an action against plaintiff, who is a resident of the State, should not be permitted to avoid it when plaintiff seeks to sue him on a cause of action which could not be the subject of a counterclaim to defendant’s cause of action. The case presents an exception to the rule.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 A.D. 814, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/petrova-v-roberts-nyappdiv-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack