From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Imperatrice v. Imperatrice

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jul 16, 1948
81 N.E.2d 95 (N.Y. 1948)

Opinion

Argued June 1, 1948

Decided July 16, 1948

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, HOFSTADTER, J.

George Mehlman for appellants.

Irving L. Young and Alfred M. Schaffer for respondent.


Since the first cause of action, sounding in equity, is valid and since defendants' motion under rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice seeks dismissal of the entire complaint, the motion was properly denied. (See Advance Music Corp. v. American Tobacco Co., 296 N.Y. 79, 84; Eidlitz v. Fischbach Moore, Inc., 239 App. Div. 483, 486; Fusco v. Brooks, 263 App. Div. 845.) We neither consider nor pass upon the sufficiency of the other causes of action, nor the nature of the judgment to which plaintiff may be entitled.

The order should be affirmed, with costs. The question certified should be answered in the affirmative.

LOUGHRAN, Ch. J., LEWIS, DESMOND, THACHER, DYE and FULD, JJ., concur; CONWAY, J., taking no part.

Order affirmed, etc.


Summaries of

Imperatrice v. Imperatrice

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jul 16, 1948
81 N.E.2d 95 (N.Y. 1948)
Case details for

Imperatrice v. Imperatrice

Case Details

Full title:ANNA IMPERATRICE, Respondent, v. ANTONIO IMPERATRICE et al., Appellants…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Jul 16, 1948

Citations

81 N.E.2d 95 (N.Y. 1948)
81 N.E.2d 95

Citing Cases

Matter of Farrell

Under the circumstances of this case — peculiar as we have characterized them — delivery of that passbook…

Triangle Publications, Inc. v. Ferrare

c and to various individuals, corporations, partnerships and associations not to do business with plaintiff's…