Kleila v. Miller

4 Citing cases

  1. Sylling v. Agsco Distributors, Inc.

    171 N.W.2d 825 (N.D. 1969)   Cited 3 times
    In Sylling v. Agsco Distributors, Inc., 171 N.W.2d 825 (N.D. 1969), we decided certified questions of law in a suit to recover damages to crops where the defendant stipulated that it would not contest the question of liability in the event it should be determined that the action was not barred by the statute of limitations and that, therefore, the law applicable on the question of limitation would determine the issue of liability, leaving only the question of damages for trial.

    New York had a similar statute which it interpreted in a similar manner. Kleila v. Miller, 1 A.D.2d 697, 147 N.Y.S.2d 589, 591; Riker v. Curtis, 10 Misc. 125, 30 N.Y.S. 940; Guilford v. Brody, 237 App. Div. 716, 262 N.Y.S. 722; Santaniello v. Levy, 23 Misc.2d 145, 201 N.Y.S.2d 309; Klein v. Biben, 185 Misc. 835, 57 N.Y.S.2d 775. We have found no other states with a similar statute and none have been pointed out to us.

  2. Larson v. Allen

    236 Or. 228 (Or. 1963)   Cited 4 times

    A similar statute in New York has been so construed. Kleila v. Miller, 1 App. Div. 2d 697, 147 NYS2d 589, 591 (1955); Guilford v. Brody, 237 App. Div. 726, 262 NYS 722, 724 (1933). See also Santaniello v. Levy, 23 Misc.2d 145, 201 NYS2d 309, 310 (1960).

  3. Mooney v. Fortuin

    49 Misc. 2d 85 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1966)   Cited 1 times

    (CPLR Changes, Summary of Major Civil Procedural Changes Enacted During the 1965 Legislative Session, Prepared by the Staff of the Judicial Conference.) (See, also, Memorandum of Judicial Conference, McKinney's 1965 Session Laws of New York, p. 2041; Supplementary Practice Commentary, by Prof. Joseph M. McLaughlin, McKinney's Cons. Laws of N.Y., Book 7B, CPLR, 1965 Cumulative Pocket Part, p. 14. Also, see, cases decided before the amendment: Barko v. Mollica, 5 A.D.2d 699; Kleila v. Miller, 1 A.D.2d 697; Keating v. Quint, 29 Misc.2d 98.) It is obvious that the change in wording of the section merely clarifies the meaning and intent of the original language of the provision.

  4. Keating v. Quint

    29 Misc. 2d 98 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1961)   Cited 1 times

    "Where defendant is within the State, section 17 of the Civil Practice Act requires that the summons be delivered to the Sheriff of the county in which the defendant resides". ( Kleila v. Miller, 1 A.D.2d 697.) There is no question that the defendant was a resident of Queens when the plaintiff delivered the summons to the Sheriff of Nassau County.