Legal Opinion

East 7th Street Realty Corp. v. Damm

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Decided December 23, 1949PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Per curiam

Section 205 of the Housing and Rent Act of 1947 (U. S. Code, tit. 50, Appendix, § 1895) created a cause of action unknown at common law. The period of limitation set up therein is regarded as a matter of substance limiting the right as well as the remedy, and the filing of a suit within the prescribed period of one year is a condition precedent to recovery. The cause of action set forth in the counterclaim was extinguished after the running of the statutory period (Osbourne v. United States, 164 F. 2d 767; Citrone v. Palladino, 77 N. Y. S. 2d 489; Hill v. Board of Supervisors of Rensselaer…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. The HarrisburgSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
  2. Osbourne v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1947
  3. Hill v. Board of SupervisorsNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
  4. United States v. BoomerCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1910

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Maurizio v. GoldsmithDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2000
  2. Central Asphalt, Inc. v. Industrial BankNew York Supreme Court · 1956
  3. Hart v. LeihyDistrict Court, W.D. Missouri · 1954

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

Powered by the Exa API