Legal Opinion
Nasaba Corp. v. Harfred Realty Corp.
New York Court of Appeals
Decided January 15, 1942PublishedCited by 78 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtRippey, J.
Before answer and without denial by affidavit of essential allegations of the complaint upon proof of which, uncontested, plaintiff may recover, defendants moved at Special Term, upon the authority of rule 107 of the Rules of Civil Practice, to dismiss the complaint on the ground that “ the causes of action set forth in the complaint did not accrue within the time limited by law for the commencement of the said actions.” There was nothing in the moving papers to indicate upon what statute of limitations defendants relied as a bar to the prosecution of the action. The motion was denied at…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Schenck v. . State Line Telephone Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1924
- Hearn 45 St. Corp. v. JanoNew York Court of Appeals · 1940
- Buttles v. SmithNew York Court of Appeals · 1939
- Clark v. KirbyNew York Court of Appeals · 1926
- Locke v. PembrokeNew York Court of Appeals · 1939
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by78 opinions
- Kronos, Inc. v. AVX Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1993
- Pinney v. Nokia, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2005
- Matter of Hines v. State Board of ParoleNew York Court of Appeals · 1944
- St. John's University, New York v. BoltonDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2010
- Erbe v. Lincoln Rochester Trust Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1957
73 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.