AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes

CATHERINE ROMANECK and NICHOLAS ROMANECK, Appellants, v. WILLIAM BAUER, MAY JAEGLE, Defendants; WILLIAM DUFFY and HENRY BARTELS, Respondents.

Order denying motion by the plaintiffs to strike out as insufficient in law the complete and separate defense of the defendants William Duffy and Henry Bartels affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. This motion was made under subdivision 6 of rule 109 of the Rules of Civil Practice. Affidavits cannot be considered upon such a motion. ( Monica Realty Corporation v. Bleecker, 229 App. Div. 184.) Whether or not plaintiff Catherine Romaneck was an employee of defendant Duffy and was injured in the course of her employment is a question to be determined upon the trial. Lazansky, P.J., Hagarty, Davis, Johnston and Close, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

ROMANECK v. BAUER
(Feb 19, 1937)