Schauder v. Weiss

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schauder v. Weiss

276 A.D.2d 967

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

DecidedFebruary 6, 1950

StatusPublished

This text of 276 A.D.2d 967 (Schauder v. Weiss) 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

Schauder v. Weiss, 276 A.D.2d 967 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

[968]*968No opinion. Adel, Sneed, Wenzel and MaeCrate, JJ., concur; Nolan, P. J., dissents in part and votes to reverse the order and to deny the motion insofar as it strikes from the answer of the defendant Eagle Indemnity Company the denials of the allegations that the copartnership was in existence and that the defendant Weiss was acting as its agent or employee at the time of the commission of the acts complained of, and strikes from such answer the allegations that the partnership had been dissolved and that defendant Weiss was not acting as its agent or employee, and insofar as it strikes from the answers of the defendants Eagle Indemnity Company and Weiss the defenses of qualified privilege and justification; and in all other respects concurs and votes to affirm. [See post, p. 1022.]

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

[968]*968No opinion. Adel, Sneed, Wenzel and MaeCrate, JJ., concur; Nolan, P. J., dissents in part and votes to reverse the order and to deny the motion insofar as it strikes from the answer of the defendant Eagle Indemnity Company the denials of the allegations that the copartnership was in existence and that the defendant Weiss was acting as its agent or employee at the time of the commission of the acts complained of, and strikes from such answer the allegations that the partnership had been dissolved and that defendant Weiss was not acting as its agent or employee, and insofar as it strikes from the answers of the defendants Eagle Indemnity Company and Weiss the defenses of qualified privilege and justification; and in all other respects concurs and votes to affirm. [See post, p. 1022.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 A.D.2d 967, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schauder-v-weiss-nyappdiv-1950.