ROSE v. SUN OIL CO.


204 Misc. 428 (1953)

Morton Rose, Plaintiff, v. Sun Oil Co. et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County.

September 23, 1953.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Elmer Drier for plaintiff.

Carter & Conboy for Sun Oil Co., defendant.


BRENNER, J.

Although plaintiff states in his notice of motion that he seeks to strike out the separate defense in the answer of the corporate defendant "as sham" (i.e., factually false), pursuant to rule 103 of the Rules of Civil Practice, it is evident that the basis of the relief sought is that such defense is "frivolous" (i.e., insufficient in law). The notice of motion, in later language, couples both falsity...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases