Reilley v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Reilley v. City of New York

273 A.D. 1014, 78 N.Y.S.2d 781, 1948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5793

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

DecidedMay 10, 1948

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 273 A.D. 1014 (Reilley v. City of New York) 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

Reilley v. City of New York, 273 A.D. 1014, 78 N.Y.S.2d 781, 1948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5793 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for injuries sustained by plaintiff-wife’s falling on snow and ice, the jury awarded a verdict to her and also to her husband in a companion action for loss of services. The defendant appeals, urging that the cause of action was barred by reason of the fact that it was not commenced within one year after it accrued, as required by subdivision c of section 394a-1.0 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appellant is precluded from setting up the above defense because of its failure to plead it in the answer or to move [1015]*1015to amend at the trial. (Arnold v. Village of North Tarry town, 137 App. Div. 68, ail’d. 203 N. Y. 536; Diohins v. City of New York, 228 App. Div. 853.) Present — Lewis, F. J., Carswell, A del, Sneed" and "Wenzel, JJ~. [See 274 App. ¡ Dwl 801.] . I

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

In an action to recover damages for injuries sustained by plaintiff-wife’s falling on snow and ice, the jury awarded a verdict to her and also to her husband in a companion action for loss of services. The defendant appeals, urging that the cause of action was barred by reason of the fact that it was not commenced within one year after it accrued, as required by subdivision c of section 394a-1.0 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appellant is precluded from setting up the above defense because of its failure to plead it in the answer or to move [1015]*1015to amend at the trial. (Arnold v. Village of North Tarry town, 137 App. Div. 68, ail’d. 203 N. Y. 536; Diohins v. City of New York, 228 App. Div. 853.) Present — Lewis, F. J., Carswell, A del, Sneed" and "Wenzel, JJ~. [See 274 App. ¡ Dwl 801.] . I

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 A.D. 1014, 78 N.Y.S.2d 781, 1948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5793, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reilley-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack