From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Romaneck v. Bauer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 19, 1937
250 App. Div. 734 (N.Y. App. Div. 1937)

Opinion

February 19, 1937.


Order denying motion by the plaintiffs to strike out as insufficient in law the complete and separate defense of the defendants William Duffy and Henry Bartels affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. This motion was made under subdivision 6 of rule 109 of the Rules of Civil Practice. Affidavits cannot be considered upon such a motion. ( Monica Realty Corporation v. Bleecker, 229 App. Div. 184.) Whether or not plaintiff Catherine Romaneck was an employee of defendant Duffy and was injured in the course of her employment is a question to be determined upon the trial. Lazansky, P.J., Hagarty, Davis, Johnston and Close, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Romaneck v. Bauer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 19, 1937
250 App. Div. 734 (N.Y. App. Div. 1937)
Case details for

Romaneck v. Bauer

Case Details

Full title:CATHERINE ROMANECK and NICHOLAS ROMANECK, Appellants, v. WILLIAM BAUER…

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

Date published: Feb 19, 1937

Citations

250 App. Div. 734 (N.Y. App. Div. 1937)

Citing Cases

Sitowsky v. Sitowsky

Prac. Act, § 580; Coffey v. Lexow, 198 App. Div. 791). The defenses struck out by the court below must be…

Mackay v. Mackay

In the consideration of the motions challenging the legal sufficiency of the defenses, the court must weigh…