Zysman v. Zysman

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Zysman v. Zysman

141 Misc. 874, 253 N.Y.S. 335, 1930 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1802

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided December 5, 1930·Published

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

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.

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

Pincite

141 Misc. 874 (Zysman v. Zysman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related