From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Flushing Manor, Inc. v. Hotkin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 1, 1931
234 App. Div. 716 (N.Y. App. Div. 1931)

Opinion

October, 1931.


Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. This court has held that under rule 104 of the Rules of Civil Practice, affidavits may be used on a motion to strike out an answer as sham. ( Liberty Investing Corp. v. Huntington Investing Corp., 224 App. Div. 867.) Rule 112 of the Rules of Civil Practice is not applicable to the state of facts presented here, and reference thereto in the notice of motion and the order is disregarded as immaterial. Lazansky, P.J., Young, Kapper, Carswell and Davis, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Flushing Manor, Inc. v. Hotkin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 1, 1931
234 App. Div. 716 (N.Y. App. Div. 1931)
Case details for

Flushing Manor, Inc. v. Hotkin

Case Details

Full title:FLUSHING MANOR, INC., Respondent, v. WILLIAM HOTKIN, Also Known as WILLIAM…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Oct 1, 1931

Citations

234 App. Div. 716 (N.Y. App. Div. 1931)

Citing Cases

Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., Inc., v. City of New York

The affidavit was offered, not under rule 112 under which affidavits may not be received, but under rule 103,…

Roman Ornamental Plastering v. Fidelity Deposit

(Rules of Civil Practice, rule 104.) It was proper for the defendant to use affidavits on the motion to show…