William Iselin & Co. v. Milton Feinberg, Inc.

92 A.D.2d 495
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 10, 1983
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 92 A.D.2d 495 (William Iselin & Co. v. Milton Feinberg, Inc.) 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
William Iselin & Co. v. Milton Feinberg, Inc., 92 A.D.2d 495 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ryp, J.), entered June 22, 1982, granting defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint as barred by the Statute of Limitations contained in bills of lading, reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion to dismiss is denied. This is an action brought by the assignee of a corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of wearing apparel seeking damages for an alleged conversion of shipped goods by the defendant, a carrier engaged in the carrying of goods. The bills of lading issued in connection with the shipments provided that any action for damages arising out of nondelivery must be instituted within 12 months following the accrual of the claim. In the order appealed from, Special Term granted defendant’s motion to dismiss on the ground that the instant motion was not commenced within the time prescribed by the bills of lading. The issue seems to us essentially indistinguishable from that presented in Continental Metals Corp. v Municipal Warehouse Co. (92 AD2d 477, affg 112 Mise 2d 923). In that case, a majority of this court held with regard to a warehouse, that a similar limitation in a warehouse receipt was legally ineffective to bar an action for damages for conversion instituted against the warehouse. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Sandler, Carro and Kassal, JJ.

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

Related

Art Masters Associates, Ltd. v. United Parcel Service
153 A.D.2d 41 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
RGA Industries, Inc. v. Jomas Express, Inc.
129 Misc. 2d 1066 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
Novak & Co. v. New York City Housing Authority
125 Misc. 2d 647 (New York Supreme Court, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
92 A.D.2d 495, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-iselin-co-v-milton-feinberg-inc-nyappdiv-1983.