Propp v. Rothenberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Propp v. Rothenberg

10 A.D.2d 715, 199 N.Y.S.2d 438, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11448

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

DecidedMarch 7, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 10 A.D.2d 715 (Propp v. Rothenberg) 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

Propp v. Rothenberg, 10 A.D.2d 715, 199 N.Y.S.2d 438, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11448 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for fraud, the appeal is from so much of an order as (1) granted respondents’ motion to strike the affirmative defenses from the answer, (2) granted respondent Propp’s motion to strike out denials in the answer and for summary judgment, and directed an assessment of damages, and (3) denied appellant’s cross motion for sum[716]*716mary judgment. Respondent Propp, appellant’s former wife, and her mother sued appellant and his mother to recover damages arising from their fraudulent misrepresentations whereby respondent Propp was induced to marry appellant. Order insofar as appealed from unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Present — Nolan, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Brennan, JJ.

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

In an action to recover damages for fraud, the appeal is from so much of an order as (1) granted respondents’ motion to strike the affirmative defenses from the answer, (2) granted respondent Propp’s motion to strike out denials in the answer and for summary judgment, and directed an assessment of damages, and (3) denied appellant’s cross motion for sum[716]*716mary judgment. Respondent Propp, appellant’s former wife, and her mother sued appellant and his mother to recover damages arising from their fraudulent misrepresentations whereby respondent Propp was induced to marry appellant. Order insofar as appealed from unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Present — Nolan, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Brennan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.2d 715, 199 N.Y.S.2d 438, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11448, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/propp-v-rothenberg-nyappdiv-1960.