Opinion · Nylaw New York

ALEKSIAK v. LEHIGH VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY, 245 App. Div. 722 (1935)

TEOFILA ALEKSIAK, as Adm’r, Adm’x, etc., of BAZELI ALEKSIAK, Deceased,Appellant, v. LEHIGH VALLEY R.R. Co., Respondent., 245 A.D. 722 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department. 1935)

Type: Opinion
Court: Nylaw New York
Jurisdiction: Nylaw
Date: 1935-01-01
Topic: general

ALEKSIAK v. LEHIGH VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY, 245 App. Div. 722 (1935) TEOFILA ALEKSIAK, as Administratrix, etc., of BAZELI ALEKSIAK, Deceased,Appellant, v. LEHIGH VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY, Respondent.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department. June, 1935.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed ALEKSIAK v. LEHIGH VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY, 245 App. Div. 722 (1935). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

ALEKSIAK v. LEHIGH VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY,245 App. Div. 722(1935)

TEOFILA ALEKSIAK, as Administratrix, etc., of BAZELI ALEKSIAK, Deceased,

Appellant, v. LEHIGH VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY, Respondent.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department.

June, 1935.

Order denying motion for leave to serve a supplemental complaint to bring in a general administratrix appointed in the State of New Jersey affirmed, without costs. Neither the original nor the proposed plaintiff has capacity to sue in this State. (Petersenv.Chemi al Bank,32 N.Y. 21;Helmev.Buckelew, 229 id. 363;Wikoffv.Hirschel, 258 id. 28.) It would be futile to bring in a general administrator for the purpose of collecting a judgment which cannot be had. The case is unlike that ofFergusonv.Harder(141 Misc. 466), wherein the administratrix qualified in this State before seeking to amend the complaint. Lazansky, P.J., Young, Hagarty, Carswell and Scudder, JJ., concur.