Legal Opinion

Heide v. Glidden Buick Corp.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Decided January 2, 1947PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Per curiam

Memorandum The demand which is necessary to start the running of the Statute of Limitations must be made within a reasonable time. Here, as matter of law, the action is barred by the statute. •

The order should be reversed, with $10 costs and motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint granted.

Shientag and Hecht, JJ., concur; Hammer, J., dissents and ■votes for affirmance on the ground that under the circumstances present the question of whether demand was made within a reasonable time was one of fact to be determined on trial.

Order reversed, etc.

2Cited by9 opinions

  1. Guggenheim Foundation v. LubellNew York Court of Appeals · 1991
  2. DeWeerth v. BaldingerCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1987
  3. Martin v. BriggsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
  4. Kunstsammlungen Zu Weimar v. ElicofonDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1981
  5. Peters v. Sotheby's Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006

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

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

Powered by the Exa API