Warhol v. Ward

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Warhol v. Ward

38 A.D.2d 694, 328 N.Y.S.2d 815, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5505

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

DecidedJanuary 25, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 38 A.D.2d 694 (Warhol v. Ward) 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

Warhol v. Ward, 38 A.D.2d 694, 328 N.Y.S.2d 815, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5505 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on July 29, 1971, denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the four causes of action in the complaint herein, unanimously modified, on the law, without costs and without disbursements, to the extent of dismissing the second cause of action, and otherwise affirmed. Unlike the other three causes of action, the basis of the second cause of action lies solely in conversion, and the act complained of in that cause of action is described by plaintiff, in paragraph “ Thirteenth ” of the complaint, as one which “ constitutes a conversion * * * by DEFENDANT of PLAINTIFF’S property”. Such cause of action is barred by the three-year Statute of Limitations applicable to conversion actions (CPLR 214, subds. 3, 4). Concur—Stevens, P. J., McGivern, Kupferman, Murphy and Capozzoli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on July 29, 1971, denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the four causes of action in the complaint herein, unanimously modified, on the law, without costs and without disbursements, to the extent of dismissing the second cause of action, and otherwise affirmed. Unlike the other three causes of action, the basis of the second cause of action lies solely in conversion, and the act complained of in that cause of action is described by plaintiff, in paragraph “ Thirteenth ” of the complaint, as one which “ constitutes a conversion * * * by DEFENDANT of PLAINTIFF’S property”. Such cause of action is barred by the three-year Statute of Limitations applicable to conversion actions (CPLR 214, subds. 3, 4). Concur—Stevens, P. J., McGivern, Kupferman, Murphy and Capozzoli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.2d 694, 328 N.Y.S.2d 815, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5505, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/warhol-v-ward-nyappdiv-1972.