Newfield v. East River Savings Bank

263 A.D. 983, 33 N.Y.S.2d 927
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 27, 1942·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

It will require a full development of the facts upon the trial of this action to determine the sufficiency of the defense of the Statute of Limitations. However, it might not be amiss to point out that if the defendant relies upon an election of remedies on the part of the plaintiff, the answer must be amended accordingly. (Roberge v. Winne, 144 N. Y. 709.)

The order should be affirmed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements. Present — Martin, P. J., O’Malley, Townley, Glennon and Untermyer, JJ.; O’Malley, J., taking no part.

Order unanimously affirmed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements.

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

Newfield v. East River Savings Bank, 263 A.D. 983, 33 N.Y.S.2d 927 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1942).

263 A.D. 983 (Newfield v. East River Savings Bank) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Montes v. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co.
78 A.D.2d 786 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1980)
Brady v. Rudin Management Co.
13 A.D.2d 80 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1961)
McCaw v. McCaw
182 Misc. 910 (New York Supreme Court, 1944)