Brill v. Brandt
This text of 263 A.D. 811 (Brill v. Brandt) 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.
Opinion
(dissenting). I dissent as to appellant iSatenstein and vote to reverse the judgment and dismiss the complaint as to him on the ground that plaintiffs’ claim against Satenstein was on the note and was barred by the Statute of Limitations. (Woodruff v. Moore, 8 Barb. 171, 172; Blanchard v. Blanchard, 201 N. Y. 134.) The letters of Satenstein’s attorneys to the bank did not contain a written acknowledgment of the claim, signed by the party to be charged, within the provisions of section 59 of the Civil Practice Act so as to toll the statute.
Untermyer, J., concurs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
263 A.D. 811, 31 N.Y.S.2d 674, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brill-v-brandt-nyappdiv-1941.