From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Waterman v. Marpet

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 16, 1953
281 App. Div. 896 (N.Y. App. Div. 1953)

Opinion

March 16, 1953.


The defendant served an answer which pleaded two causes of action as counterclaims against the plaintiff and cross claims against the two appellants who were brought into the action by the answer. The appellants moved to dismiss the counterclaims as against them on the ground that they did not state facts sufficient to constitute causes of action or, in the alternative, requiring the defendant to serve an amended answer making more definite and certain specified paragraphs in the two counterclaims. The motion, insofar as it was to dismiss, was denied, but was granted to the extent of requiring the defendant to serve an amended answer making some items more definite and certain. The appeal is from so much of the order as denied the motion to dismiss. Appeal dismissed, without costs. The order directed the service of an amended answer which has been served. That answer supersedes the original answer. Therefore, a decision here would be as to a nonexisting pleading. ( Gilchrest House v. Guaranteed Title Mtge. Co., 276 App. Div. 778; Millard v. Delaware, L. W.R.R. Co., 204 App. Div. 80.) Nolan, P.J., Carswell, Adel, MacCrate and Beldock, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Waterman v. Marpet

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 16, 1953
281 App. Div. 896 (N.Y. App. Div. 1953)
Case details for

Waterman v. Marpet

Case Details

Full title:JOHNANNA S. WATERMAN, Plaintiff, v. JOSEPH R. MARPET, Respondent, and LEON…

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

Date published: Mar 16, 1953

Citations

281 App. Div. 896 (N.Y. App. Div. 1953)

Citing Cases

Van Valkenburgh, Etc. v. Rider Pub

It is argued by the defendants that the effect of the service of such amended complaint eliminates the…

Mid-State Elec. Co. v. N.Y. St. Envtl. Fac

Memorandum: The order granting defendant New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation leave to serve…