Order entered on or about June 14, 1966 denying plaintiff's motion to strike the first, second and third affirmative defenses in the answer unanimously modified, on the law, by striking the third defense, and as so modified affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The third defense is that the plaintiff is not a duly licensed employment agency. In the complaint it is alleged that the plaintiff performed services resulting in the sale of defendant's stock holdings...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
