Case Name: Flushing Manor, Inc., Respondent, v. William Hotkin, Also Known as William Hotkins, and Rose Hotkin, His Wife, Also Known as Rose Hotkins, Appellants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1931-10
Citations: 234 A.D. 716
Docket Number: 
Parties: Flushing Manor, Inc., Respondent, v. William Hotkin, Also Known as William Hotkins, and Rose Hotkin, His Wife, Also Known as Rose Hotkins, Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 234
Pages: 716–717

Head Matter:
Flushing Manor, Inc., Respondent, v. William Hotkin, Also Known as William Hotkins, and Rose Hotkin, His Wife, Also Known as Rose Hotkins, Appellants.

Opinion:
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.