City of New York v. Alpha Contracting Corp.

182 Misc. 115, 49 N.Y.S.2d 609, 1944 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2159
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided June 23, 1944·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Memobandum Per Curiam.'

The counterclaim interposed by defendant is barred by the six months’ period of limitation contained in the contract entered into between the parties. Such limitation is to be considered on a parity with corresponding statutory provisions. (Amex Asphalt Corp. v. City of New York, 263 App. Div. 968, affd. 288 N. Y. 721.) The fact that the counterclaim arose out of the same contract upon which plaintiff’s cause of action is predicated, will not rescue the counterclaim in view of the prohibition contained in section 61 of the Civil Practice Act. (Fish v. Conley, 221 App. Div. 609; Garben v. McKittrick, 225 App. Div. 772.)

The order should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted.

Hammeb, Shiektag and Edee, JJ., concur.

Order reversed, etc.

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

City of New York v. Alpha Contracting Corp., 182 Misc. 115, 49 N.Y.S.2d 609, 1944 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2159 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1944).

182 Misc. 115 (City of New York v. Alpha Contracting Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Raymond International, Inc. v. City of New York
511 F. Supp. 773 (S.D. New York, 1981)
Afsco Specialties, Inc. v. Maryland Casualty Co.
37 Misc. 2d 641 (New York Supreme Court, 1962)
Planet Construction Corp. v. Board of Education
165 N.E.2d 758 (New York Court of Appeals, 1960)