perfect defense in New York

1901Town of Venice v. Woodruff, 62 N. Y. 462 .

1901(Town of Venice v. Woodruff, 62 N. Y. 462 .) The complaint does not show what the capital of the plaintiff is; that it has the right to issue certificates ■ representing its capital, or, assuming that it had such right, that the certificates issued were executed by an officer having authority to execute them; that they resembled in any degree certificates rightfully issued, or that any one has been or will be deceived or misled, damaged or injured in any way by the purchase of them.

2013As to the balance of defendant’s claim, although defendant indeed is entitled to meaningful representation, he is not entitled to a perfect or error-proof trial (see People v Jones, 101 AD3d 1241, 1242 [2012]; People v Battease, 74 AD3d 1571, 1575 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 849 [2010]).

2013As to the balance of defendant’s claim, although defendant indeed is entitled to meaningful representation, he is not entitled to a perfect or error-proof trial (see People v Jones, 101 AD3d 1241, 1242 [2012]; People v Battease, 74 AD3d 1571, 1575 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 849 [2010]).

1947(Bloede Co. v. Devine Co., 211 App. Div. 180 ; Ganni v. Stallman, 200 App. Div. 485 .) It is stated in the Bloede case (supra, p. 182): “ We would not be justified in refusing the examination because defendants assert they have a perfect defense to the cause of action alleged.” If the examination is denied and it is later determined upon the trial that Harold S. Lyon does have an interest in the remainder, he will have been deprived of the examination before trial contemplated by the statute.

1924(Ganni v. Stallman, 200 App. Div. 485 .) It appears that at the time the contract was made the defendants declined to make known to plaintiff the names of users of these machines, who were competitors of plaintiff, “ for ethical and business reasons; ” but made positive assurance that the machines were in successful and practical operation.

1903Miller v. Milligan, 48 Barb. 30 ; Hall v. Suydam, 6 Barb. 83 ; Fagnan v. Knox, 66 N. Y. 525 .

1903(Miller v. Milligan, 48 Barb. 30 ; Hall v. Suydam, 6 id. 83 ; Fagnan v. Knox, 66 N. Y. 525 .) If upon the trial of the case at bar the defendant should be able to satisfy the jury upon the evidence that the plaintiff was in fact guilty of conversion, and assuming that it was precisely the same upon that issue as upon the former trial, he would have established a perfect defense.

1903(Miller v. Milligan, 48 Barb. 30 ; Hall v. Suydam, 6 id. 83 ; Fagnan v. Knox, 66 N. Y. 525 .) If upon the trial of the case at bar the defendant should be able to satisfy the jury upon the evidence that the plaintiff was in fact guilty of conversion, and assuming that it was precisely the same upon that issue as upon the former trial, he would have established a perfect defense.

1903(Miller v. Milligan, 48 Barb. 30 ; Hall v. Suydam, 6 id. 83 ; Fagnan v. Knox, 66 N. Y. 525 .) If upon the trial of the case at bar the defendant should be able to satisfy the jury upon the evidence that the plaintiff was in fact guilty of conversion, and assuming that it was precisely the same upon that issue as upon the former trial, he would have established a perfect defense.

1900(Fuller v. Kemp, 138 N. Y. 231 ; Nassoiy v. Tomlinson, 148 id. 326 ; Hills v. Sommer, 53 Hun, 392 ; Bernard v. Henry Werner Co., 19 Misc.

1899Fuller v. Kemp, 138 N. Y. 231 , 33 N. E. 1034 ; Nassoiy v. Tomlinson, 148 N. Y. 326 , 42 N. E. 715 ; Hills v. Sommer, 53 Hun, 392 , 6 N. Y.

1900(Fuller v. Kemp, 138 N. Y. 231 ; Nassoiy v. Tomlinson, 148 id. 326 ; Hills v. Sommer, 53 Hun, 392 ; Bernard v. Henry Werner Co., 19 Misc.

1900(Fuller v. Kemp, 138 N. Y. 231 ; Nassoiy v. Tomlinson, 148 id. 326 ; Hills v. Sommer, 53 Hun, 392 ; Bernard v. Henry Werner Co., 19 Misc.

1961The defense of infancy is a perfect defense on a contract for personal services (Aborn v. Janis, 62 Misc. 95 ).

1947(Bloede Co. v. Devine Co., 211 App. Div. 180 ; Ganni v. Stallman, 200 App. Div. 485 .) It is stated in the Bloede case (supra, p. 182): “ We would not be justified in refusing the examination because defendants assert they have a perfect defense to the cause of action alleged.” If the examination is denied and it is later determined upon the trial that Harold S. Lyon does have an interest in the remainder, he will have been deprived of the examination before trial contemplated by the statute.

1931(Commonwealth v. Andrews, supra.) A conspiracy to commit a felony constitutes an independent crime, distinct from the felony contemplated, and complete in itself.

1931(Adler v. Zimmer man, 233 N. Y. 431 ; Ernst v. Crosby, 140 id. 364; Goodrich v. Houghton, 134 id. 115; Pratt v. Short, 79 id. 437, 445.) The illegality of the enterprise would be a perfect defense to an action brought upon the contract, if both parties were equally guilty.

1931(Saratoga County Bank v. King, 44 N. Y. 87, 94 .) The National Prohibition Act makes the sale but not the purchase of liquor unlawful.

1930(Church v. Wilson, 152 App. Div. 844, 852 ; affd., 209 N. Y. 553 ; Carrier v. Carrier, 226 id. 114.) No consent or acquiescence by the other devisees under the will, therefore, could validate this void remainder, but its invalidity constitutes a perfect defense to any attack upon defendant’s title by the heirs of Adelaide Welch.

1930(Church v. Wilson, 152 App. Div. 844, 852 ; affd., 209 N. Y. 553 ; Carrier v. Carrier, 226 id. 114.) No consent or acquiescence by the other devisees under the will, therefore, could validate this void remainder, but its invalidity constitutes a perfect defense to any attack upon defendant’s title by the heirs of Adelaide Welch.

1929The defendant in this action pleaded and proved by undisputed testimony a perfect defense (Blass v. Terry, 156 N. Y. 122, 126 ); and the trial court made find ings of fact accordingly; but the conclusions of law and the judgment are based upon the theory that the issue raised in the instant action was determined in the Maisel foreclosure action, although not pleaded and tried as between the parties in the present action.

1928A reciprocal obligation rested on the tenant to give the month’s notice.” In the case of Hand v. Knaul ( 116 Misc. 714 ) the court held: “ The tenancy from month to month is where the tenant’s term is indefinite and uncertain although the rent is paid monthly and is described in some of the cases as an ' indefinite tenancy from month to month.’ * * , * Such a tenancy requires a notice of thirty days for its termination.

1918(Shriver v. Shriver, 86 N. Y. 575, 585 .) The trial justice considered that the equities of the parties would be fully protected by allowing defendant to show on the trial that her title on the' closing day was good and marketable and that she had a perfect defense against any claim which might be made by the holders of outstanding record title.

1918(Kahn v. Mount, 46 App. Div. 84 .) This was too liberal a view to take of the rights of the vendor.

1918The case of Smith v. Dotterweich, 200 N. Y. 299 , we think, disposes of the question raised.

1917For this proposition he relies largely upon Garner v. Mangam ( 93 N. Y. 642 ); Krumm v. Beach (96 id. 398), and Fairchild v. McMahon (139 id. 290).

1914In Bartley v. Boston & Northern Street Ry. ( 198 Mass. 163 ) the statute under consideration had to do solely with the form of the remedy.

1910In Duryee v. Lester. (supra)., the court, speaking of double agency, said: “ The matter properly we think should have been pleaded (1 Chitty Pl. 501; Potts v. Sparrow, * 6 Car. & P. 671; McKyring v. Bull, 16 N. Y. 297 ), but at all events the question should have been raised in some form on the trial, and it is too late- to raise it for the first time on appeal.” But although- the defense was not pleaded, the evidence with regard to such double employment was received without objection on the part of plaintiff, and the motion to dismiss was specifically put upon the ground that, - in view of s

1910In Duryee v. Lester. (supra)., the court, speaking of double agency, said: “ The matter properly we think should have been pleaded (1 Chitty Pl. 501; Potts v. Sparrow, * 6 Car. & P. 671; McKyring v. Bull, 16 N. Y. 297 ), but at all events the question should have been raised in some form on the trial, and it is too late- to raise it for the first time on appeal.” But although- the defense was not pleaded, the evidence with regard to such double employment was received without objection on the part of plaintiff, and the motion to dismiss was specifically put upon the ground that, - in view of s

1909Under the authorities (Schweinburg v. Altman, 131 App. Div. 795 ; Bock v. Bock, 130 id. 229; Goldmark v. U. S. E.