From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hardecker v. Klem

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 4, 1936
249 App. Div. 736 (N.Y. App. Div. 1936)

Opinion

December 4, 1936.


Action for damages as a consequence of the collision of two automobiles. Order of the County Court of Suffolk county in so far as it denies defendant's motion to vacate the ex parte order and to strike out the reply reversed on the law, without costs, and motion granted to that extent, without costs. In all other respects the order is affirmed, without costs. A reply may only be required to be served on defendant's motion. The ex parte order, therefore, was unauthorized and the service of a reply pursuant thereto was likewise unauthorized. Since the appeal, however, presents no practical question in these particulars because the new matter is deemed to be controverted by traverse or avoidance (Civ. Prac. Act, § 243), no costs are allowed. Lazansky, P.J., Hagarty, Carswell, Davis and Johnston, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Hardecker v. Klem

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 4, 1936
249 App. Div. 736 (N.Y. App. Div. 1936)
Case details for

Hardecker v. Klem

Case Details

Full title:FRANK J. HARDECKER, Respondent, v. CHRISTIAN KLEM, Appellant

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

Date published: Dec 4, 1936

Citations

249 App. Div. 736 (N.Y. App. Div. 1936)

Citing Cases

Forrest v. Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co.

The defendant's cross motion for summary judgment is also denied for the following reasons. In the absence of…

Ferrainolo v. Prudential Insurance

Memorandum: In our opinion it was error to permit the plaintiff to serve a reply to the affirmative defense…