Sullivan v. Curtayne

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sullivan v. Curtayne

247 A.D. 756

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

DecidedFebruary 15, 1936

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 247 A.D. 756 (Sullivan v. Curtayne) 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

Sullivan v. Curtayne, 247 A.D. 756 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Order denying plaintiff’s motion to strike from the answer the first separate defense on the ground that it does not constitute a defense to the action in that the jurisdiction of the United States District Court cannot be attacked collaterally affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. For the purposes of this motion, we must deem the allegations of the defense to be true and that the plaintiff did- not reside or have his domicile or principal place of business within the jurisdictional limits of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. These allegations, if denied, present a triable issue of fact, the burden of proving which, of course, is upon the defendant. (O’Donoghue v. Boies, 159 N. Y. 87, 98, 99; Chemung Canal Bank v. Judson, 8 id. 254; Poillon v. Lawrence, 77 id. 207.) Young, Hagarty, Johnston and Taylor, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., dissents.

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

Order denying plaintiff’s motion to strike from the answer the first separate defense on the ground that it does not constitute a defense to the action in that the jurisdiction of the United States District Court cannot be attacked collaterally affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. For the purposes of this motion, we must deem the allegations of the defense to be true and that the plaintiff did- not reside or have his domicile or principal place of business within the jurisdictional limits of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. These allegations, if denied, present a triable issue of fact, the burden of proving which, of course, is upon the defendant. (O’Donoghue v. Boies, 159 N. Y. 87, 98, 99; Chemung Canal Bank v. Judson, 8 id. 254; Poillon v. Lawrence, 77 id. 207.) Young, Hagarty, Johnston and Taylor, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 A.D. 756, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sullivan-v-curtayne-nyappdiv-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack