Zysman v. Zysman

141 Misc. 874, 253 N.Y.S. 335, 1930 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1802
CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
DecidedDecember 5, 1930
StatusPublished

This text of 141 Misc. 874 (Zysman v. Zysman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Zysman v. Zysman, 141 Misc. 874, 253 N.Y.S. 335, 1930 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1802 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1930).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The Statute of Limitations did not commence to run until a demand was made (Brehm v. Mayor, etc., of New York, 104 N. Y. 186, 192; Wenman v. Mohawk Ins. Co., 13 Wend. 268) or should have been made (Sullivan v. Ellis, 219 Fed. 694; 37 C. J. 818; 1 Wood Lim. [4th ed.] § 125.) As a demand within the period of the Statute of Imputations was timely as a matter of law (Sullivan v. Ellis, supra), the motion to strike out the defense as insufficient should have been granted.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs.

All concur; present, Lydon, Levy and Frankenthaler, JJ.

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

Related

Brehm v. . Mayor, Etc., of N.Y.
10 N.E. 158 (New York Court of Appeals, 1887)
Sullivan v. Ellis
219 F. 694 (Eighth Circuit, 1915)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
141 Misc. 874, 253 N.Y.S. 335, 1930 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1802, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zysman-v-zysman-nyappterm-1930.