From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Oehsen v. Bartley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 1, 1934
241 App. Div. 619 (N.Y. App. Div. 1934)

Opinion

January, 1934.


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, Scudder and Tompkins, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Oehsen v. Bartley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 1, 1934
241 App. Div. 619 (N.Y. App. Div. 1934)
Case details for

Oehsen v. Bartley

Case Details

Full title:MARTIN VON OEHSEN and FRIEDA VON OEHSEN, Respondents, v. EDWARD L…

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

Date published: Jan 1, 1934

Citations

241 App. Div. 619 (N.Y. App. Div. 1934)

Citing Cases

Wade v. Bigham

The issues of fact raised by these denials in themselves would preclude the granting of this motion in…

Stevenson v. News Syndicate Co.

Accordingly, we pass to the merits. Under the practice of the New York Supreme Court, a motion by a plaintiff…