Von Oehsen v. Bartley
This text of 241 A.D. 619 (Von Oehsen v. Bartley) 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.
Opinion
Order granting plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings under rule 112 reversed on the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion denied, with ten dollars costs. The issues of fact raised by the denials contained in the answer precluded granting this motion. This is so irrespective of whether or not the affirmative defenses were sufficient or insufficient; there being no motion specifically directed to these defenses and counterclaim, as such, apart and distinct from the motion directed to the answer as an entirety, which contained these denials and raised questions of fact for a trial. Such a trial could have been speedily had under the Kings County Special Term rules, the following of which would have made unnecessary this abortive motion and would have avoided this appeal. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Seudder and Tompkins, JJ.,-concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
241 A.D. 619, 268 N.Y.S. 513, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/von-oehsen-v-bartley-nyappdiv-1934.