Barko v. Mollica

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Barko v. Mollica

5 A.D.2d 699, 169 N.Y.S.2d 771, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3420

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

DecidedDecember 30, 1957

StatusPublished

This text of 5 A.D.2d 699 (Barko v. Mollica) 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

Barko v. Mollica, 5 A.D.2d 699, 169 N.Y.S.2d 771, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3420 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order denying appellants’ motion to dismiss the first cause of action pleaded in the complaint, wherein recovery is sought for a wrongful death, on the ground that the Statute of Limitations had run when the appellants were served with, the summons (Rules Civ. Prac., rule 107, subd. 5). Order reversed, without costs, [700]*700and motion granted. Delivery of the summons to the Sheriff of the City of New York, Kings County Division, prior to the expiration of the two-year statutory period was ineffectual, since appellants were residents of Queens County. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 17; Administrative Code of City of New York, § 1032-15.0; Balter v. Janis, 200 Misc. 635.)

Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Murphy, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order denying appellants’ motion to dismiss the first cause of action pleaded in the complaint, wherein recovery is sought for a wrongful death, on the ground that the Statute of Limitations had run when the appellants were served with, the summons (Rules Civ. Prac., rule 107, subd. 5). Order reversed, without costs, [700]*700and motion granted. Delivery of the summons to the Sheriff of the City of New York, Kings County Division, prior to the expiration of the two-year statutory period was ineffectual, since appellants were residents of Queens County. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 17; Administrative Code of City of New York, § 1032-15.0; Balter v. Janis, 200 Misc. 635.)

Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Murphy, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A.D.2d 699, 169 N.Y.S.2d 771, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3420, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barko-v-mollica-nyappdiv-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack