Riverside Chemical Co. v. City of Niagara Falls

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Riverside Chemical Co. v. City of Niagara Falls

269 A.D. 810, 55 N.Y.S.2d 446, 1945 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3956

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

DecidedMay 16, 1945

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 269 A.D. 810 (Riverside Chemical Co. v. City of Niagara Falls) 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

Riverside Chemical Co. v. City of Niagara Falls, 269 A.D. 810, 55 N.Y.S.2d 446, 1945 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3956 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment and order reversed on the law, with costs, and motion denied, without costs. Memorandum: The answer sufficiently raises, in view of the allegations of this complaint, the issue of violation of subdivision 4 of section 44 of the Charter of the City of Niagara Falls (L. 1916, ch. 530). (Ellis v. New York, 1 Daly 102; McDonald v. Mayor, 1 Hun 719, opinion in 4 Thomp. & C., 177, affd. 68 N. Y. 23; Seif v. City of Long Beach, 286 N. Y. 382, 387.) (As to the sufficiency of affirmative defense see Weiskopf v. City of Saratoga Springs, 269 N. Y. 634, revg. 244 App. Div. 417, 420, 421.) Even though an answer be insufficient in form or in substance, it is not necessarily frivolous, for such an answer may be amended. It does not follow that it is interposed in bad faith. (Young et al. v. Kent et al., 46 N. Y. 672.) If there were four separate bona fide sales, not made for the purpose of evading the Charter, and the plaintiff otherwise complied with the Charter provisions, the admissions in the answer would entitle it to judgment. Under this complaint we cannot tell whether there was one sale or four sales, and if there were four, whether as to them, there was a compliance with subdivision 5 of section 44 of the Charter. A motion to strike out an entire pleading as frivolous has never been favored. Certainly it ought not to be used as a substitute for judgment under rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice. A motion like the present one searches the record. (Van Alstyne v. Freday, 41 N. Y. 174; Wilkin et al. v. Raplee, 52 N. Y. 248, 251; Munger v. Shannon, 61 N. Y. 251; McMoran v. Lange, 25 App. Div. 11, 12.) It is at least questionable whether this complaint is sufficient. See subdivision 5 of section 44 and section 84 of the Charter as to presentation of claim before liability of City attaches. AH concur. (The judgment is for plaintiff in an action to recover the purchase price of merchandise sold. The order grants plaintiff’s motion to strike out defendant’s answer as frivolous and directs judgment for plaintiff.) Present — Taylor, P. J., Dowling, Harris, MeCurn and Larkin, JJ.

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

Judgment and order reversed on the law, with costs, and motion denied, without costs. Memorandum: The answer sufficiently raises, in view of the allegations of this complaint, the issue of violation of subdivision 4 of section 44 of the Charter of the City of Niagara Falls (L. 1916, ch. 530). (Ellis v. New York, 1 Daly 102; McDonald v. Mayor, 1 Hun 719, opinion in 4 Thomp. & C., 177, affd. 68 N. Y. 23; Seif v. City of Long Beach, 286 N. Y. 382, 387.) (As to the sufficiency of affirmative defense see Weiskopf v. City of Saratoga Springs, 269 N. Y. 634, revg. 244 App. Div. 417, 420, 421.) Even though an answer be insufficient in form or in substance, it is not necessarily frivolous, for such an answer may be amended. It does not follow that it is interposed in bad faith. (Young et al. v. Kent et al., 46 N. Y. 672.) If there were four separate bona fide sales, not made for the purpose of evading the Charter, and the plaintiff otherwise complied with the Charter provisions, the admissions in the answer would entitle it to judgment. Under this complaint we cannot tell whether there was one sale or four sales, and if there were four, whether as to them, there was a compliance with subdivision 5 of section 44 of the Charter. A motion to strike out an entire pleading as frivolous has never been favored. Certainly it ought not to be used as a substitute for judgment under rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice. A motion like the present one searches the record. (Van Alstyne v. Freday, 41 N. Y. 174; Wilkin et al. v. Raplee, 52 N. Y. 248, 251; Munger v. Shannon, 61 N. Y. 251; McMoran v. Lange, 25 App. Div. 11, 12.) It is at least questionable whether this complaint is sufficient. See subdivision 5 of section 44 and section 84 of the Charter as to presentation of claim before liability of City attaches. AH concur. (The judgment is for plaintiff in an action to recover the purchase price of merchandise sold. The order grants plaintiff’s motion to strike out defendant’s answer as frivolous and directs judgment for plaintiff.) Present — Taylor, P. J., Dowling, Harris, MeCurn and Larkin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 A.D. 810, 55 N.Y.S.2d 446, 1945 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3956, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/riverside-chemical-co-v-city-of-niagara-falls-nyappdiv-1945.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack