Legal Opinion
Piccione v. Schultz
New York Supreme Court
Decided September 13, 1950PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHallinan, J.
Defendant moves to dismiss the complaint for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action (Rules Civ. Prac., rule 106, subd. 5), contending that it appears on the face of the complaint that the Statute of Frauds (Real Property Law, § 259) is a bar to the action.
The merits of defendant’s objection may not be reached by a motion under rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice. The Statute of Frauds, like the Statute of Limitations, bars the remedy, not the right. (Bayles v. Strong, 104 App. Div. 153, affd. 185 N. Y. 582.) The plaintiff is under no obligation to allege…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Matthews v. . MatthewsNew York Court of Appeals · 1897
- Litkind v. WardAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1939
- First National Bank v. American Surety Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1933
- Seamans v. . BarentsenNew York Court of Appeals · 1905
- Bayles v. StrongAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1905
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Raoul v. Olde Village Hall, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1980
- Adsit v. First Trust & Deposit Co.New York Supreme Court · 1957
- Corcoran v. TrommerNew York Supreme Court · 1952