Rosen v. Elridge

New York Supreme Court

Rosen v. Elridge

41 Misc. 2d 670, 246 N.Y.S.2d 278, 1964 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2236

DecidedJanuary 8, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 41 Misc. 2d 670 (Rosen v. Elridge) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rosen v. Elridge, 41 Misc. 2d 670, 246 N.Y.S.2d 278, 1964 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2236 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

George M. Fanelli, J.

Plaintiff’s motion for summary or accelerated judgment (CPLR 3212; formerly Rules Civ. Prac., rule 113) is denied. The court is of the opinion that subdivision (f) of rule 3016 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules (formerly Civ. Prac. Act, § 255-a with minor changes) was never intended to apply to this action which is brought to foreclose a mechanic’s lien resulting from an alleged breach of contract, despite the fact that the complaint involves work, labor and services and materials furnished. If plaintiff feels that defendant’s general denials, as distinguished from specific denials, fail to present any triable issue of fact; that there is no defense to the action and that he can establish his cause of action sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment in his favor, then, if he be so advised, he should renew the motion upon proper affidavits and other available proof.

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

George M. Fanelli, J.

Plaintiff’s motion for summary or accelerated judgment (CPLR 3212; formerly Rules Civ. Prac., rule 113) is denied. The court is of the opinion that subdivision (f) of rule 3016 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules (formerly Civ. Prac. Act, § 255-a with minor changes) was never intended to apply to this action which is brought to foreclose a mechanic’s lien resulting from an alleged breach of contract, despite the fact that the complaint involves work, labor and services and materials furnished. If plaintiff feels that defendant’s general denials, as distinguished from specific denials, fail to present any triable issue of fact; that there is no defense to the action and that he can establish his cause of action sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment in his favor, then, if he be so advised, he should renew the motion upon proper affidavits and other available proof.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 Misc. 2d 670, 246 N.Y.S.2d 278, 1964 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2236, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosen-v-elridge-nysupct-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack