Webaco Oil Co. v. Graham

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Webaco Oil Co. v. Graham

52 A.D.2d 1094, 384 N.Y.S.2d 321, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13038

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

DecidedMay 28, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 52 A.D.2d 1094 (Webaco Oil Co. v. Graham) 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

Webaco Oil Co. v. Graham, 52 A.D.2d 1094, 384 N.Y.S.2d 321, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13038 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff properly acquired jurisdiction over defendant (see State of New York v Davies, 24 AD2d 240, affd 18 NY2d 950). Defendant asserts the affirmative defense of the Statute of Limitations and plaintiff alleges that the statute was tolled because of defendant’s continued absence from the State as a resident of the State of Maryland (CPLR 207). Defendant submitted only an attorney’s affidavit in response, which does not contradict the plaintiff’s assertion and, further it is made by someone without personal knowledge of the facts (see Di Sabato v Soffes, 9 AD2d 297). (Appeal from order and judgment of Monroe Supreme Court—summary judgment.) Present—Moule, J. P., Cardamone, Simons, Dillon and Witmer, JJ.

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

Order and judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff properly acquired jurisdiction over defendant (see State of New York v Davies, 24 AD2d 240, affd 18 NY2d 950). Defendant asserts the affirmative defense of the Statute of Limitations and plaintiff alleges that the statute was tolled because of defendant’s continued absence from the State as a resident of the State of Maryland (CPLR 207). Defendant submitted only an attorney’s affidavit in response, which does not contradict the plaintiff’s assertion and, further it is made by someone without personal knowledge of the facts (see Di Sabato v Soffes, 9 AD2d 297). (Appeal from order and judgment of Monroe Supreme Court—summary judgment.) Present—Moule, J. P., Cardamone, Simons, Dillon and Witmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.2d 1094, 384 N.Y.S.2d 321, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13038, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/webaco-oil-co-v-graham-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack