From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Van Suetendael v. Van Suetendael

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jul 19, 1944
56 N.E.2d 563 (N.Y. 1944)

Opinion

Argued April 3, 1944

Decided July 19, 1944

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, YOUNG, Off. Ref.

William A. Walsh, Jr., and William A. Walsh for appellants.

Morris F. Goldstein, Abraham P. Inselstein and Maurice S. Degenstein for respondent.


The cause of action against defendant Achille O. Van Suetendael individually accrued no later than February, 1929, when that defendant rendered an accounting but omitted any reference to the decedent's interest in the real estate and bank accounts. At that time the decedent's adult son already knew that the estate had an interest in these assets. The action not having been commenced until November, 1940, this cause of action was barred by the ten-year Statute of Limitations (Civ. Prac. Act, §§ 15, 53).

The cause of action against both defendants as directors of Phillipsburgh Construction Company accrued no earlier than December 15, 1937, when that corporation was dissolved. It was therefore not barred by any Statute of Limitations. The evidence amply supported the findings of the courts below on this phase of the case.

The judgment of Special Term, as modified by the Appellate Division, should be further modified by striking out the second, third and fourth decretal paragraphs thereof, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs.

LEHMAN, Ch. J., LOUGHRAN, RIPPEY, LEWIS, CONWAY, DESMOND and THACHER, JJ., concur.

Judgment accordingly.


Summaries of

Van Suetendael v. Van Suetendael

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jul 19, 1944
56 N.E.2d 563 (N.Y. 1944)
Case details for

Van Suetendael v. Van Suetendael

Case Details

Full title:FRANCIS A. VAN SUETENDAEL, as Administrator De Bonis Non of the Estate of…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Jul 19, 1944

Citations

56 N.E.2d 563 (N.Y. 1944)
56 N.E.2d 563

Citing Cases

Titcomb v. Billings, Olcott & Co

The Appellate Division gave expression to this rule in affirming the lower Court in the Butler case, supra.…

Lord Day v. Socialist Republic of Vietnam

The Court construes this claim as an action for dissolution or an accounting. Such a cause of action accrues…