History
  • No items yet
midpage
Romaneck v. Bauer
250 A.D. 734
N.Y. App. Div.
1937
Check Treatment

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.

Case Details

Case Name: Romaneck v. Bauer
Court Name: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Date Published: Feb 19, 1937
Citation: 250 A.D. 734
Court Abbreviation: N.Y. App. Div.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.