Stroock & Co. v. Lichtenthal, Inc.
225 A.D. 732
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 15, 1928·Published·Cited by 5 cases
Opinion
We believe the defendant should be given an opportunity to frame his pleadings so as to present the alleged defenses and counterclaims set forth in the proposed amended answer. We do not, however, depart from our former opinion on the merits (224 App. Div. 19). The order should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the motion granted. Present — Dowling, P. J., Finch, McAvoy, Martin and O’Malley, JJ. Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Stroock & Co. v. Lichtenthal, Inc., 225 A.D. 732 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1928).
225 A.D. 732 (Stroock & Co. v. Lichtenthal, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Black v. Black
31 Misc. 2d 184 (New York Supreme Court, 1961)
Clarson Construction Co. v. Vespa
21 Misc. 2d 149 (New York Supreme Court, 1959)
Hansen v. Storm
21 Misc. 2d 561 (New York Supreme Court, 1959)
Albano v. Michaelsen
14 Misc. 2d 76 (New York Supreme Court, 1958)
Travlos v. Commercial Union of America, Inc.
135 Misc. 895 (New York Supreme Court, 1930)