Stebila v. Mitrany

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stebila v. Mitrany

26 A.D.2d 940, 275 N.Y.S.2d 807, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3134

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

DecidedNovember 7, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 26 A.D.2d 940 (Stebila v. Mitrany) 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

Stebila v. Mitrany, 26 A.D.2d 940, 275 N.Y.S.2d 807, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3134 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to invalidate a tax sale and tax deed, and for other related relief, defendants comprising Elma Land Co., as partners and individually, appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered January 12, 1966, which (1) denied their motion inter alia to dismiss each of the causes in the amended complaint on the grounds that each of them is barred by the Statute of Limitations and fails to state a cause of action, (2) granted plaintiffs summary judgment on their second cause of action and (3) directed cancellation of the tax sale and the tax deed. Order affirmed, without costs (Proschuk v. Erlwein, 22 A D 2d 1018). In our opinion, the amended complaint relates back to the original complaint. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to invalidate a tax sale and tax deed, and for other related relief, defendants comprising Elma Land Co., as partners and individually, appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered January 12, 1966, which (1) denied their motion inter alia to dismiss each of the causes in the amended complaint on the grounds that each of them is barred by the Statute of Limitations and fails to state a cause of action, (2) granted plaintiffs summary judgment on their second cause of action and (3) directed cancellation of the tax sale and the tax deed. Order affirmed, without costs (Proschuk v. Erlwein, 22 A D 2d 1018). In our opinion, the amended complaint relates back to the original complaint. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.2d 940, 275 N.Y.S.2d 807, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3134, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stebila-v-mitrany-nyappdiv-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack