Opinion · Nylaw New York

SALSKY v. SCHWARTZ, 278 App. Div. 564 (1951)

KITTY SALSKY, Individually & as Adm’r, Adm’x of the Est. of ROSESCHWARTZ, Deceased, Respondent, v. HARRY SCHWARTZ et al., Appellants., 278 A.D. 564 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department. 1951)

Type: Opinion
Court: Nylaw New York
Jurisdiction: Nylaw
Date: 1951-01-30
Topic: general

SALSKY v. SCHWARTZ, 278 App. Div. 564 (1951) KITTY SALSKY, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of ROSESCHWARTZ, Deceased, Respondent, v. HARRY SCHWARTZ et al., Appellants.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department. January 30, 1951.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed SALSKY v. SCHWARTZ, 278 App. Div. 564 (1951). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

SALSKY v. SCHWARTZ,278 App. Div. 564(1951)

KITTY SALSKY, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of ROSE

SCHWARTZ, Deceased, Respondent, v. HARRY SCHWARTZ et al., Appellants.

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

January 30, 1951.

Order denying defendants' cross motion to dismiss the complaint unanimously affirmed. The defense of the Statute of Limitations is not so clearly available on the face of the complaint to warrant dismissal of the complaint on motion. It should also await the showing on the trial.

Present — Peck, P.J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Van Voorhis, JJ.