From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Reed v. Hopkins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Apr 7, 1960
10 A.D.2d 897 (N.Y. App. Div. 1960)

Opinion

April 7, 1960

Appeal from the Ontario Special Term.

Present — Williams, P.J., Bastow, Halpern, McCluskey and Henry, JJ.


Order unanimously modified in accordance with the memorandum and as modified affirmed, without costs of this appeal to any party. Memorandum: An objection under section 210 of the Civil Practice Act that a plaintiff is not the real party in interest must be taken by the defendant either in his answer or by a motion addressed to the pleading. (2 Carmody-Waite, New York Practice, p. 551; Massi v. Alben Bldrs., 270 App. Div. 482, 485; Wells v. Merrill, 204 App. Div. 696, 698). Defendants have elected to follow the latter course of procedure. A proper determination of the question requires passing upon disputed factual issues and the construction and interpretation of legal documents upon which the claimed rights of the respective parties are based. In the exercise of a proper discretion, it is concluded that the objection should be reserved for the trial. If the defendants are so advised, they may move for leave to serve an amended answer alleging the objection that plaintiff is not the real party in interest. We do not reach the merits of the application.


Summaries of

Reed v. Hopkins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Apr 7, 1960
10 A.D.2d 897 (N.Y. App. Div. 1960)
Case details for

Reed v. Hopkins

Case Details

Full title:JAMES R. REED, Respondent, v. CHARLES S. HOPKINS et al., Appellants

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

Date published: Apr 7, 1960

Citations

10 A.D.2d 897 (N.Y. App. Div. 1960)

Citing Cases

Miltenberg Samton v. Overseas Investors

The issue raised by defendant's motion has not been satisfactorily resolved by the affidavits and should…

Logistics Industries Corporation v. Wacks

Although the complaint alleges that J-E does possess corporate status, such however, is not binding on this…