Zapryluk v. Milau

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zapryluk v. Milau

278 A.D. 949, 104 N.Y.S.2d 948, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5334

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

DecidedJune 4, 1951

StatusPublished

This text of 278 A.D. 949 (Zapryluk v. Milau) 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

Zapryluk v. Milau, 278 A.D. 949, 104 N.Y.S.2d 948, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5334 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to vacate a judgment, defendant appeals from an order denying her motion, made as administratrix, to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action under rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice, and on the further ground that the cause of action set forth in the complaint did not accrue within the time limited by law for the commencement of an action thereon under rule 107 of said rules, and to strike out certain paragraphs of the complaint as sham and frivolous under rule 103 of the said rules. Order modified by striking from the ordering paragraph the words “ denied in all respects.” and by substituting therefor the words “ granted to the extent of dismissing the complaint under rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice, and in all other respects the motion is denied.” As so modified, the order is affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to appellant. It does not appear that the plaintiff was blind, illiterate, or otherwise handicapped at the time he signed the confession of judgment. Carswell, Acting P. J., Johnston, Adel, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to vacate a judgment, defendant appeals from an order denying her motion, made as administratrix, to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action under rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice, and on the further ground that the cause of action set forth in the complaint did not accrue within the time limited by law for the commencement of an action thereon under rule 107 of said rules, and to strike out certain paragraphs of the complaint as sham and frivolous under rule 103 of the said rules. Order modified by striking from the ordering paragraph the words “ denied in all respects.” and by substituting therefor the words “ granted to the extent of dismissing the complaint under rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice, and in all other respects the motion is denied.” As so modified, the order is affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to appellant. It does not appear that the plaintiff was blind, illiterate, or otherwise handicapped at the time he signed the confession of judgment. Carswell, Acting P. J., Johnston, Adel, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D. 949, 104 N.Y.S.2d 948, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5334, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zapryluk-v-milau-nyappdiv-1951.