Lundberg v. Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lundberg v. Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co.

261 A.D. 907, 25 N.Y.S.2d 187, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8042

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 3, 1941

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 261 A.D. 907 (Lundberg v. Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co.) 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.

Bluebook

Lundberg v. Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co., 261 A.D. 907, 25 N.Y.S.2d 187, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8042 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by plaintiff in an action for wrongful death (a) from an order of the Supreme Court dismissing the complaint, and (b) from the judgment entered thereon. The ground of dismissal is that the action is barred by the two-year limitation prescribed in section 130 of the Decedent Estate Law (Consol. Laws, chap. 13). Order and judgment unanimously affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, on the authority of Mossip v. Clement & Co. (256 App. Div. 469; affd., without opinion, 283 N. Y. 554). The authorities upon which appellant relies, typical of which is Crapo v. City of Syracuse (183 N. Y. 395), are sui generis, having no relation to the provisions of Decedent Estate Law, section 130, here involved, or to predecessor statutes. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Taylor, JJ.

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

Appeal by plaintiff in an action for wrongful death (a) from an order of the Supreme Court dismissing the complaint, and (b) from the judgment entered thereon. The ground of dismissal is that the action is barred by the two-year limitation prescribed in section 130 of the Decedent Estate Law (Consol. Laws, chap. 13). Order and judgment unanimously affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, on the authority of Mossip v. Clement & Co. (256 App. Div. 469; affd., without opinion, 283 N. Y. 554). The authorities upon which appellant relies, typical of which is Crapo v. City of Syracuse (183 N. Y. 395), are sui generis, having no relation to the provisions of Decedent Estate Law, section 130, here involved, or to predecessor statutes. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Taylor, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D. 907, 25 N.Y.S.2d 187, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8042, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lundberg-v-robins-dry-dock-repair-co-nyappdiv-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack