Levi v. Sackerman

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Levi v. Sackerman

131 Misc. 40, 225 N.Y.S. 658, 1927 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1236

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedDecember 22, 1927

StatusPublished

This text of 131 Misc. 40 (Levi v. Sackerman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Levi v. Sackerman, 131 Misc. 40, 225 N.Y.S. 658, 1927 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1236 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Timely notice was given by defendant of his intention to apply to amend his answer by pleading as a defense the applicable Maryland statute of limitations. This motion the defendant promptly made at the beginning of the trial. It was denied, not in the exercise of judicial discretion but because of the controlling effect which the trial justice attached to certain Maryland decisions which held that in that State such statute would be deemed waived and would not be allowed to be interposed where not set up in the original answer, whereas the trial court should have applied the New York law relative to the circumstances under which amendments are allowed in determining the question raised by defendant’s motion.

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with thirty dollars costs to appellant to abide the event.

All concur; present, Bijur, Levy and Crain, JJ.

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

Per Curiam.

Timely notice was given by defendant of his intention to apply to amend his answer by pleading as a defense the applicable Maryland statute of limitations. This motion the defendant promptly made at the beginning of the trial. It was denied, not in the exercise of judicial discretion but because of the controlling effect which the trial justice attached to certain Maryland decisions which held that in that State such statute would be deemed waived and would not be allowed to be interposed where not set up in the original answer, whereas the trial court should have applied the New York law relative to the circumstances under which amendments are allowed in determining the question raised by defendant’s motion.

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with thirty dollars costs to appellant to abide the event.

All concur; present, Bijur, Levy and Crain, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 Misc. 40, 225 N.Y.S. 658, 1927 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1236, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/levi-v-sackerman-nyappterm-1927.