History
  • No items yet
midpage
Stroock & Co. v. Lichtenthal, Inc.
225 A.D. 732
N.Y. App. Div.
1928
Check Treatment
Per Curiam.

We believe the defendant should be given an opportunity to frame his pleadings so as to present the alleged defenses and counterclaims set forth in the proposed amended answer. We do not, however, depart from our former opinion on the merits (224 App. Div. 19). The order should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the motion granted. Present — Dowling, P. J., Finch, McAvoy, Martin and O’Malley, JJ. Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted.

Case Details

Case Name: Stroock & Co. v. Lichtenthal, Inc.
Court Name: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Date Published: Dec 15, 1928
Citation: 225 A.D. 732
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.