Safrin v. Friedman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Safrin v. Friedman

277 A.D.2d 1138

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

DecidedDecember 11, 1950

StatusPublished

This text of 277 A.D.2d 1138 (Safrin v. Friedman) 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

Safrin v. Friedman, 277 A.D.2d 1138 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

Action to recover overtime compensation in two causes, one under the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947 (U. S. Code, tit. 29, §§ 251-262), and the second under a collective bargaining agreement. Order denying appellants’ motion under rule 107 of the Rules of Civil Practice, to dismiss the second amended complaint on the ground that the causes are barred by lapse of time, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Appellants’ time to answer is extended until fifteen days after the entry of the order hereon. With respect to the first cause of action, the motion was properly denied. As to at least a part of plaintiff’s claim the Statute of Limitations had not run. We do not presently pass upon the question of estoppel raised by the answering affidavit. With respect to the second cause of action, under the circumstances here the denial of the motion was not an abuse of discretion. Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Sneed, JJ., concur.

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

Action to recover overtime compensation in two causes, one under the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947 (U. S. Code, tit. 29, §§ 251-262), and the second under a collective bargaining agreement. Order denying appellants’ motion under rule 107 of the Rules of Civil Practice, to dismiss the second amended complaint on the ground that the causes are barred by lapse of time, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Appellants’ time to answer is extended until fifteen days after the entry of the order hereon. With respect to the first cause of action, the motion was properly denied. As to at least a part of plaintiff’s claim the Statute of Limitations had not run. We do not presently pass upon the question of estoppel raised by the answering affidavit. With respect to the second cause of action, under the circumstances here the denial of the motion was not an abuse of discretion. Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Sneed, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 A.D.2d 1138, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/safrin-v-friedman-nyappdiv-1950.