Rudden v. Abbel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rudden v. Abbel

2 A.D.2d 758, 153 N.Y.S.2d 608, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4810

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

DecidedJuly 2, 1956

StatusPublished

This text of 2 A.D.2d 758 (Rudden v. Abbel) 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

Rudden v. Abbel, 2 A.D.2d 758, 153 N.Y.S.2d 608, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4810 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order granting a motion to strike out as sham the first defense in the answer, from an order denying a cross motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and from a third order denying a motion (1) to dismiss the complaint under subdivision 1 of rule 107 of the Rules of Civil Practice, on the ground that the court does not have jurisdiction of the subject of the action, and (2) for judgment on the pleadings dismissing the complaint, under rule 112 of the Rules of Civil Practice. Orders affirmed, with a single bill of $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Wenzel, Acting P. J., Beldoek, Ughetta, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order granting a motion to strike out as sham the first defense in the answer, from an order denying a cross motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and from a third order denying a motion (1) to dismiss the complaint under subdivision 1 of rule 107 of the Rules of Civil Practice, on the ground that the court does not have jurisdiction of the subject of the action, and (2) for judgment on the pleadings dismissing the complaint, under rule 112 of the Rules of Civil Practice. Orders affirmed, with a single bill of $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Wenzel, Acting P. J., Beldoek, Ughetta, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 A.D.2d 758, 153 N.Y.S.2d 608, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4810, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rudden-v-abbel-nyappdiv-1956.