Legal Opinion

Lebrecht v. Orefice

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Decided May 10, 1951PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSchreiber, J.

The purpose of the repeal in 1936 of former section 266 of the Civil Practice Act and its replacement with the present section 266 (L. 1936, ch. 324) was to encourage the disposition in one action of all claims between the parties thereto. To hold that the interposition of a counterclaim is not the commencement of an action within the meaning of section 23 of the Civil Practice Act would tend to discourage a defendant from interposing a counterclaim in accordance with the policy of the law since by counterclaiming he might lose rights which he would possess if instead he commenced a separate…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Hill v. Board of SupervisorsNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
  2. Sharrow v. . Inland Lines, Ltd.New York Court of Appeals · 1915
  3. Claim of Cheesman v. CheesmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1923
  4. Conolly v. . HyamsNew York Court of Appeals · 1903
  5. Schwertfeger v. Scandinavian American LineAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1919

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Gross v. Newburger, Loeb & Co.New York Supreme Court · 1980
  2. Ehrlich v. Rebco Insurance Exchange, Ltd.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
  3. Kaplan v. UribeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1955
  4. Pennsylvania Footwear Corp. v. Midlantic Bank, N.A. (In re Pennsylvania Footwear Corp.)United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1996

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

Powered by the Exa API