General
Flushing Manor, Inc., Respondent, v. William Hotkin, Also Known as William Hotkins, and Rose Hotkin, His Wife, Also Known as Rose Hotkins, Appellants
234 A.D. 716·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·1931·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Flushing Manor, Inc., Respondent, v. William Hotkin, Also Known as William Hotkins, and Rose Hotkin, His Wife, Also Known as Rose Hotkins, Appellants.
[MAJORITY]
Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. This court has held that under rule 104 of the Rules of Civil Practice, affidavits may be used on a motion to strike out an answer as sham. (Liberty Investing Corp. v. Huntington Investing Corp., 224 App. Div. 867.) Rule 112 of the Rules of Civil Practice is not applicable to the state of facts presented here, and reference thereto in the notice of motion and the order is disregarded as immaterial. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Kapper, Carswell and Davis, JJ., concur.