American East India Corp. v. Commercial Trading Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

American East India Corp. v. Commercial Trading Co.

55 A.D.2d 532, 389 N.Y.S.2d 108, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15178

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 6, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 55 A.D.2d 532 (American East India Corp. v. Commercial Trading Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

American East India Corp. v. Commercial Trading Co., 55 A.D.2d 532, 389 N.Y.S.2d 108, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15178 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered January 29, 1975, dismissing the complaint on the ground of the Statute of Limitations, is unanimously affirmed, for the reasons stated by Gellinoff, J., at Special Term. Respondent shall recover of appellant $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal. In addition, we note that plaintiff’s claim has been twice adjudicated against plaintiff on the merits: once by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (American East India Corp. v Ideal Shoe Co., 400 F Supp 141), arid again by the Supreme Court of this State (Commercial Trading Co. v American East India Corp., NY County, No. 10534/1972). Although these judgments were rendered after the judgment appealed from, we may notice them for the purpose of sustaining the judgment appealed from. (Schwamm v Davis, 18 AD2d 1070.) Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Lupiano, Birns, Silver-man and Lane, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered January 29, 1975, dismissing the complaint on the ground of the Statute of Limitations, is unanimously affirmed, for the reasons stated by Gellinoff, J., at Special Term. Respondent shall recover of appellant $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal. In addition, we note that plaintiff’s claim has been twice adjudicated against plaintiff on the merits: once by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (American East India Corp. v Ideal Shoe Co., 400 F Supp 141), arid again by the Supreme Court of this State (Commercial Trading Co. v American East India Corp., NY County, No. 10534/1972). Although these judgments were rendered after the judgment appealed from, we may notice them for the purpose of sustaining the judgment appealed from. (Schwamm v Davis, 18 AD2d 1070.) Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Lupiano, Birns, Silver-man and Lane, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 A.D.2d 532, 389 N.Y.S.2d 108, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15178, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-east-india-corp-v-commercial-trading-co-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack