Winston v. Smoak

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Winston v. Smoak

267 A.D. 931, 47 N.Y.S.2d 609, 1944 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5568

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

DecidedMarch 15, 1944

StatusPublished

This text of 267 A.D. 931 (Winston v. Smoak) 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

Winston v. Smoak, 267 A.D. 931, 47 N.Y.S.2d 609, 1944 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5568 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion by plaintiff for judgment on the pleadings and for an order striking out certain separate defenses in the answer, and a motion made by defendants orally without previous notice for judgment on the pleadings. The portion of the order which strikes out certain defenses should be reversed, the sufficiency of those defenses should be determined upon a trial. For earlier litigation in this matter see Winston V. Saugerties Farms, Inc. [Smoalc] (287 N. Y. 718, affg. 262 App. Div. 435). Order modified on the law, by reversing paragraph numbered (2) which struck out defenses “ contained in paragraphs 7 to 24 inclusive of the answer”; “separate defenses alleged and set forth in paragraphs 7 to 18, inclusive, of the answer”; and separate defenses “ alleged and set forth in paragraphs 19 to 24, inclusive, of said answer ”; and as so modified the order is affirmed. The porton of the order which denies motions for summary judgment is affirmed, without costs. All concur. [See post, p. 1017.]

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

Motion by plaintiff for judgment on the pleadings and for an order striking out certain separate defenses in the answer, and a motion made by defendants orally without previous notice for judgment on the pleadings. The portion of the order which strikes out certain defenses should be reversed, the sufficiency of those defenses should be determined upon a trial. For earlier litigation in this matter see Winston V. Saugerties Farms, Inc. [Smoalc] (287 N. Y. 718, affg. 262 App. Div. 435). Order modified on the law, by reversing paragraph numbered (2) which struck out defenses “ contained in paragraphs 7 to 24 inclusive of the answer”; “separate defenses alleged and set forth in paragraphs 7 to 18, inclusive, of the answer”; and separate defenses “ alleged and set forth in paragraphs 19 to 24, inclusive, of said answer ”; and as so modified the order is affirmed. The porton of the order which denies motions for summary judgment is affirmed, without costs. All concur. [See post, p. 1017.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 A.D. 931, 47 N.Y.S.2d 609, 1944 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5568, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/winston-v-smoak-nyappdiv-1944.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack