Bruce v. Bruce

New York Supreme Court

Bruce v. Bruce

134 Misc. 503, 235 N.Y.S. 157, 1929 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 838

DecidedJune 1, 1929

StatusPublished

This text of 134 Misc. 503 (Bruce v. Bruce) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bruce v. Bruce, 134 Misc. 503, 235 N.Y.S. 157, 1929 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 838 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Dowling, J.

This action is for separation. Defendant moves to strike out the following allegation of the complaint herein: “ On or about the 25th day of December, 1918, at the residence of plaintiff and defendant in Lyons Falls, New York, the defendant without any provocation struck and beat plaintiff, severely injuring her face and body,” on the ground that it is not available as a basis for separation, being barred by the ten-year Statute of Limitations (Civ. Prac. Act, § 53). On the argument of the motion, my impression was that it should be stricken out, but, on examination of the subject, I concluded that, although the ten-year Statute of Limitations applies to a separation action, in order for the court to [504]*504pronounce the proper judgment, it should be informed of the general course of treatment accorded the plaintiff by the defendant during the entire marriage period. In the instant case, if plaintiff fail to establish the allegations of the complaint, excepting the one above set forth, she could not sustain a recovery as under a proper plea. Action upon that particular charge would be barred.

The motion to strike out is denied, with ten dollars costs to abide event. Ordered accordingly.

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

Dowling, J.

This action is for separation. Defendant moves to strike out the following allegation of the complaint herein: “ On or about the 25th day of December, 1918, at the residence of plaintiff and defendant in Lyons Falls, New York, the defendant without any provocation struck and beat plaintiff, severely injuring her face and body,” on the ground that it is not available as a basis for separation, being barred by the ten-year Statute of Limitations (Civ. Prac. Act, § 53). On the argument of the motion, my impression was that it should be stricken out, but, on examination of the subject, I concluded that, although the ten-year Statute of Limitations applies to a separation action, in order for the court to [504]*504pronounce the proper judgment, it should be informed of the general course of treatment accorded the plaintiff by the defendant during the entire marriage period. In the instant case, if plaintiff fail to establish the allegations of the complaint, excepting the one above set forth, she could not sustain a recovery as under a proper plea. Action upon that particular charge would be barred.

The motion to strike out is denied, with ten dollars costs to abide event. Ordered accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 Misc. 503, 235 N.Y.S. 157, 1929 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 838, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bruce-v-bruce-nysupct-1929.