Rosenberg v. Stratson Realty Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rosenberg v. Stratson Realty Co.

234 A.D. 621

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

DecidedJuly 15, 1931

StatusPublished

This text of 234 A.D. 621 (Rosenberg v. Stratson Realty Co.) 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

Rosenberg v. Stratson Realty Co., 234 A.D. 621 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Order granting respondent’s motion for judgment on the pleadings reversed upon the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs. While the respondent’s answer alleges the making of a final award of compensation to appellant, there is no allegation of the payment thereof, whereas appellant’s reply alleges the rescission of said award. In these circumstances it is our opinion that appellant is not to be regarded as having made an election that is a bar to this action against respondent. Lazansky, P. J., Kapper, Scudder and Tompkins, JJ., concur; Davis, J., concurs in result, believing that the complaint is defective and should be amended to state with certainty the plaintiff’s cause of action.

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

Order granting respondent’s motion for judgment on the pleadings reversed upon the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs. While the respondent’s answer alleges the making of a final award of compensation to appellant, there is no allegation of the payment thereof, whereas appellant’s reply alleges the rescission of said award. In these circumstances it is our opinion that appellant is not to be regarded as having made an election that is a bar to this action against respondent. Lazansky, P. J., Kapper, Scudder and Tompkins, JJ., concur; Davis, J., concurs in result, believing that the complaint is defective and should be amended to state with certainty the plaintiff’s cause of action.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

234 A.D. 621, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosenberg-v-stratson-realty-co-nyappdiv-1931.