From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lipton v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp., Curtiss-Wright

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jul 14, 1954
307 N.Y. 775 (N.Y. 1954)

Summary

In Lipton the plaintiff was a resident and so not bound under former Civil Practice Act § 13 (now CPLR § 202 in substance) by the shorter of the New York or the Egyptian statutes of limitations.

Summary of this case from Neal v. Butler Aviation Intern., Inc.

Opinion

Argued May 27, 1954

Decided July 14, 1954

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, HOFSTADTER, J.

Harold W. Hayman and William A. Hyman for respondents.

Ralph L. McAfee, George M. Billings, Edward Q. Carr, Jr., and John G. Williams for appellant.


Order affirmed, with costs. First question certified answered in the negative; second and third questions certified answered in the affirmative. No opinion.

Concur: LEWIS, Ch. J., CONWAY, DESMOND, DYE, FULD, FROESSEL and VAN VOORHIS, JJ.


Summaries of

Lipton v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp., Curtiss-Wright

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jul 14, 1954
307 N.Y. 775 (N.Y. 1954)

In Lipton the plaintiff was a resident and so not bound under former Civil Practice Act § 13 (now CPLR § 202 in substance) by the shorter of the New York or the Egyptian statutes of limitations.

Summary of this case from Neal v. Butler Aviation Intern., Inc.
Case details for

Lipton v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp., Curtiss-Wright

Case Details

Full title:RUTH LIPTON, Individually and as Executrix of CONRAD LIPTON, Deceased, et…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Jul 14, 1954

Citations

307 N.Y. 775 (N.Y. 1954)
121 N.E.2d 615

Citing Cases

Riley v. Capital Airlines

If the latter is part of the substantive right granted to plaintiff under section 5474 of the code, the…

Neal v. Butler Aviation Intern., Inc.

And defendants contend that even if the infants had individual claims for their separate losses, the…