Schmitt v. Ohl-O-Matic Screw Products Inc.

10 Misc. 2d 851, 175 N.Y.S.2d 258, 1958 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3394
New York County Courts·Decided May 7, 1958·Published

Opinion

George D. Ogden, J.

Plaintiff seeks to recover a judgment against defendant upon two causes of action alleged in Ms complaint. Defendant admits the first cause of action; denies the second; and, in its answer, has interposed an affirmative defense and a counterclaim to both of plaintiff’s causes of action; plaintiff has replied. All pleadings are verified.

It cannot be said that the counterclaim interposed by defendant does not tend to defeat or minimize the first, as well as the second, cause of action. It is my opinion that the counterclaim is not subject to attack under rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice, and that the action and counterclaim should be tried together (Dietz v. Glynne, 221 App. Div. 329).

Motion denied, with $10 costs of motion to defendant to abide the event.

Submit order.

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

Schmitt v. Ohl-O-Matic Screw Products Inc., 10 Misc. 2d 851, 175 N.Y.S.2d 258, 1958 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3394 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1958).

10 Misc. 2d 851 (Schmitt v. Ohl-O-Matic Screw Products Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Dietz v. Glynne
221 A.D. 329 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1927)