Heinzelman v. Union News Co.

New York Court of Appeals

Heinzelman v. Union News Co.

92 N.E.2d 37, 300 N.Y. 444

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 13, 1950

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 92 N.E.2d 37 (Heinzelman v. Union News Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Heinzelman v. Union News Co., 92 N.E.2d 37, 300 N.Y. 444 (N.Y. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

A husband’s action for loss of his wife’s services and for medical expenses incurred by reason of her injuries is, under New Jersey law, based upon a violation of his property rights and is not governed by New Jersey’s two-year Statute of Limitations (N. J. Stat. Ann., § 2:24-2) covering “ actions for injuries to the person ”. (See Fryer v. Mount Holly Water Co., 87 N. J. L. 57.) Accordingly, the husband’s action for loss of services was timely brought (N. J. Stat. Ann., § 2:24-1; Civ. Prac. Act, § 49, subd. 6; § 13). Since defendant’s motion “ for judgment dismissing the complaint ” under rule 112 and rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice is directed at the complaint as a whole and seeks dismissal of the complaint in its entirety, the motion was properly denied. (See Imperatrice v. Imperatrice, 298 N. Y. 549, 550; Advance Music Corp. v. American Tobacco Co., 296 N. Y. 79, 84; Eidlitz v. Fischbach & Moore, Inc., 239 App. Div. 483, 486; Heaman v. Rowell Co., 233 App. Div. 335, 336; cf. Demuth v. Griffin, 253 App. Div. 399, 402-403.) [447]*447We do not decide whether the first cause of action by the wife for personal injuries was begun within the time limited by law.

The order should be affirmed, with costs. The second question certified should be answered in the affirmative; the first question certified, not answered.

Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Froessel, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed, etc.

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

Per Curiam.

A husband’s action for loss of his wife’s services and for medical expenses incurred by reason of her injuries is, under New Jersey law, based upon a violation of his property rights and is not governed by New Jersey’s two-year Statute of Limitations (N. J. Stat. Ann., § 2:24-2) covering “ actions for injuries to the person ”. (See Fryer v. Mount Holly Water Co., 87 N. J. L. 57.) Accordingly, the husband’s action for loss of services was timely brought (N. J. Stat. Ann., § 2:24-1; Civ. Prac. Act, § 49, subd. 6; § 13). Since defendant’s motion “ for judgment dismissing the complaint ” under rule 112 and rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice is directed at the complaint as a whole and seeks dismissal of the complaint in its entirety, the motion was properly denied. (See Imperatrice v. Imperatrice, 298 N. Y. 549, 550; Advance Music Corp. v. American Tobacco Co., 296 N. Y. 79, 84; Eidlitz v. Fischbach & Moore, Inc., 239 App. Div. 483, 486; Heaman v. Rowell Co., 233 App. Div. 335, 336; cf. Demuth v. Griffin, 253 App. Div. 399, 402-403.) [447]*447We do not decide whether the first cause of action by the wife for personal injuries was begun within the time limited by law.

The order should be affirmed, with costs. The second question certified should be answered in the affirmative; the first question certified, not answered.

Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Froessel, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 N.E.2d 37, 300 N.Y. 444, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heinzelman-v-union-news-co-ny-1950.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack