Ventriniglia v. Eichner

138 A.D. 274, 122 N.Y.S. 966, 1910 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1510
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 6, 1910
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 138 A.D. 274 (Ventriniglia v. Eichner) 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
Ventriniglia v. Eichner, 138 A.D. 274, 122 N.Y.S. 966, 1910 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1510 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1910).

Opinion

McLaughlin, J.:

This action was brought by an owner of certain real estate to compel the surrender and cancellation of a tax lease issued upon the property by the, comptroller of the city of New York upon the ground that the same was a cloud upon her title. The defendant demurred to the complaint upon the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and then ¡the plaintiff moved for judgment on the pleadings.

The trial of the issue raised by the demurrer could only be brought on as provided in section 977 of the Code of Civil1 Procedure. Notwithstanding, the fact that the defendant had pot served the notice of trial" provided in the section, or asked for any affirmative relief, the court, nevertheless, assumed to dispose of the plaintiff’s [275]*275motion as though it were the trial of the demurrer, and made an order denying the motion and sustaining the demurrer, and directed judgment for the defendant dismissing the complaint, with costs; unless within ten days plaintiff paid the costs and served an amended complaint. The only motion before the court was one made by plaintiff for judgment in her favor, and only that motion should have been decided.

Besides, it would seem, under Sanders v. Parshall (67 Hun, 105; affd., 142 N. Y. 679), that the complaint does state a cause of action, but that question must be determined on a trial of the issues raised by the demurrer, and for that reason we do nob at this time pass upon it.

The order appealed from, therefore, is reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings denied, with ten dollars costs to the defendant.

Ingraham, P. J., Clarke, Scott and Dowling, JJ., concurred.

Order reversed, -with- ten dollars costs and disbursements to appellant, and plaintiff’s motion for judgment denied, with ten dollars costs to defendant.

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

Related

Bernard v. Chase National Bank
233 A.D. 384 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1931)
American Men's & Boys' Clothing Manufacturers Ass'n v. Proser
190 A.D. 164 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1919)
Wayte v. Bowker Chemical Co.
180 A.D. 568 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1917)
Dahm v. O'Connell
179 A.D. 363 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1917)
Kober v. Lyle
177 A.D. 903 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1917)
Rieser v. L. Prager, Inc.
157 N.Y.S. 118 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1916)
Manhattan & Jamaica Railway Co v. Brady
170 A.D. 322 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1915)
Lobsitz v. E. Lissberger Co.
157 N.Y.S. 117 (New York Supreme Court, 1915)
Bacharach v. American Union Realty Co.
163 A.D. 940 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1914)
Terwilliger v. Browning, King & Co.
157 A.D. 885 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1913)
Jamaica Water Supply Co. v. Hill
157 A.D. 894 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1913)
Duff v. Queensbro Heights Land Corp.
156 A.D. 913 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1913)
Posner v. Rosenberg
153 A.D. 249 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1912)
Schwartz v. Williams
153 A.D. 302 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1912)
Framingham Trust Co. v. Villard
74 Misc. 204 (New York Supreme Court, 1911)
Zeikus v. Florida East Coast Railway Co.
70 Misc. 339 (New York Supreme Court, 1911)
Aldrich v. Newburgh News Printing & Publishing Co.
70 Misc. 126 (New York Supreme Court, 1910)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
138 A.D. 274, 122 N.Y.S. 966, 1910 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1510, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ventriniglia-v-eichner-nyappdiv-1910.