Legal Opinion
Sicolo v. Prudential Savings Bank
New York Court of Appeals
Decided March 5, 1959PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDesmond, J.
The principal law question on this appeal — and the only one we need answer—is as to whether the cause of action under section 205-a of the General Municipal Law set forth in the amended complaint is one for a penalty and so barred by the three-year limitation prescribed by subdivision 3 of section 49 of the Civil Practice Act. Plaintiff argues that in his amended complaint he does not sue for a penalty but declares on “ a liability created by statute ” and accordingly that his suit is subject only to the six-year limitation of subdivision 2 of section 48 of the Civil Practice Act.
On December…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Huntington v. AttrillSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Schmidt v. Merchants Despatch Transportation Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1936
- Meeker & Co. v. Lehigh Valley RRSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
- 149 Madison Avenue Corp. v. AsseltaSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Cox v. . Lykes BrothersNew York Court of Appeals · 1924
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Sperry v. Crompton Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 2007
- Bertha Building Corporation v. National Theatres CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1959
- Mullen v. Zoebe, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1995
- Williams v. STANDARD FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASS'NCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1988
- Leh v. General Petroleum Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1964
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.