Waterman v. Marpet

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Waterman v. Marpet

281 A.D. 896, 119 N.Y.S.2d 677, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3713

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

DecidedMarch 16, 1953

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 281 A.D. 896 (Waterman v. Marpet) 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

Waterman v. Marpet, 281 A.D. 896, 119 N.Y.S.2d 677, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3713 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

The defendant served an answer which pleaded two causes of action as counterclaims against the plaintiff and cross claims against the two appellants who were brought into the action by the answer. The appellants moved to dismiss the counterclaims as against them on the ground that they did not state facts sufficient to constitute causes of action or, in the alternative, requiring the defendant to serve an amended answer making more definite and certain specified paragraphs in the two counterclaims. The motion, insofar as it was to dismiss, was denied, but was granted to the extent of requiring the defendant to serve an amended answer [897]*897making some items more definite and certain. The appeal is from so much of the order as denied the motion to dismiss. Appeal dismissed, without costs. The order directed the service of an amended answer which has been served. That answer supersedes the original answer. Therefore, a decision here would be as to a nonexisting pleading. (Gilchrest Souse v. Guaranteed Title & Mtge. Go., 276 App. Div. 778; Millard v. Delaware, L. & W. B. B. Go., 204 App. Div. 80.) Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Adel, MacCrate and Beldoek, JJ., concur.

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

The defendant served an answer which pleaded two causes of action as counterclaims against the plaintiff and cross claims against the two appellants who were brought into the action by the answer. The appellants moved to dismiss the counterclaims as against them on the ground that they did not state facts sufficient to constitute causes of action or, in the alternative, requiring the defendant to serve an amended answer making more definite and certain specified paragraphs in the two counterclaims. The motion, insofar as it was to dismiss, was denied, but was granted to the extent of requiring the defendant to serve an amended answer [897]*897making some items more definite and certain. The appeal is from so much of the order as denied the motion to dismiss. Appeal dismissed, without costs. The order directed the service of an amended answer which has been served. That answer supersedes the original answer. Therefore, a decision here would be as to a nonexisting pleading. (Gilchrest Souse v. Guaranteed Title & Mtge. Go., 276 App. Div. 778; Millard v. Delaware, L. & W. B. B. Go., 204 App. Div. 80.) Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Adel, MacCrate and Beldoek, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D. 896, 119 N.Y.S.2d 677, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3713, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/waterman-v-marpet-nyappdiv-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack