From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Reilley v. City of New York

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Nov 24, 1948
83 N.E.2d 12 (N.Y. 1948)

Summary

In Reilly v City of New York (298 N.Y. 710), the Court of Appeals held that failure of the defendant City of New York to specifically raise the limitation defense or move to amend its answer to include same constituted a waiver of said defense notwithstanding the city's contention that there was a statutory prohibition against waiver of said defense by a municipality.

Summary of this case from Eagle Insurance v. City of New York

Opinion

Argued October 19, 1948

Decided November 24, 1948

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, DALY, J.

John P. McGrath, Corporation Counsel ( W. Bernard Richland, Seymour B. Quel and Barbara Carroll of counsel), for appellant.

James G. Purdy for respondents.


Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: LOUGHRAN, Ch. J., LEWIS, CONWAY, DESMOND, DYE and FULD, JJ.


Summaries of

Reilley v. City of New York

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Nov 24, 1948
83 N.E.2d 12 (N.Y. 1948)

In Reilly v City of New York (298 N.Y. 710), the Court of Appeals held that failure of the defendant City of New York to specifically raise the limitation defense or move to amend its answer to include same constituted a waiver of said defense notwithstanding the city's contention that there was a statutory prohibition against waiver of said defense by a municipality.

Summary of this case from Eagle Insurance v. City of New York
Case details for

Reilley v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:MARY E. REILLEY et al., Respondents, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Nov 24, 1948

Citations

83 N.E.2d 12 (N.Y. 1948)
83 N.E.2d 12

Citing Cases

Rubino v. City of New York

Therefore, even assuming that an informal appearance is a form of estoppel, in a proper case such estoppel…

MATTER OF HUIE

The claim for the taking of claimant's easement, however, was not filed "within three years after title…