Legal Opinion

Terwilliger v. Terwilliger

New York Supreme Court

Decided April 25, 1951PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMacAfeeb, J.

The defendant moves to dismiss the complaint under subdivision 9 of rule 107 of the Buies of Civil Practice. The ground there set forth is “ that the cause of action did not accrue against the defendant because of his infancy or other disability.”

Plaintiff at the outset resists the motion as not being timely brought within the twenty days provided by the rule. The defendant counters with the contention that his attorney asked for and obtained from plaintiff’s attorney extensions of time. Plaintiff’s attorney insists that such extensions were extensions of time to answer only and were not…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Cannon v. CannonNew York Court of Appeals · 1942
  2. In Re the Accounting of Van VolkenburghNew York Court of Appeals · 1930
  3. Fiorello v. New York Protestant Episcopal City Mission SocietyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1926
  4. Boehm v. C. M. Gridley & SonsNew York Supreme Court · 1946
  5. In re the Probate of the Will of CaldwellNew York Surrogate's Court · 1945

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Becker v. RieckNew York Supreme Court · 1959
  2. Valvo v. Urban Development Corp.New York Supreme Court · 1972
  3. Gelbman v. GelbmanNew York Supreme Court · 1966

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API