From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Menzel v. List

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 6, 1964
22 A.D.2d 647 (N.Y. App. Div. 1964)

Summary

In Menzel v. List, 22 A.D.2d 647, 253 N.Y.S.2d 43, 44 (1st Dep't. 1964), on remand, 49 Misc.2d 300, 267 N.Y.S.2d 804 (Sup.Ct.N.Y.Co. 1966), modified on other grounds, 28 A.D. 516, 279 N.Y.S.2d 608 (1st Dep't. 1967), modification rev'd, 24 N.Y.2d 91, 298 N.Y.S.2d 979, 246 N.E.2d 742 (1969), it was held that "a demand by the rightful owner is a substantive, rather than a procedural, prerequisite to the bringing of an action for conversion by the owner."

Summary of this case from Zu Weimar v. Elicofon

Opinion

October 6, 1964


Order, entered February 7, 1964, denying defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint in an action for conversion on the ground of Statute of Limitations and, in the alternative, to dismiss the third-party defendants' affirmative defense of the Statute of Limitations in the third-party proceedings and denying the motion by the third-party defendants to dismiss the principal complaint on the ground of the Statute of Limitations, unanimously affirmed, with costs to abide the event. The precedents in this State suggest that with respect to a bona fide purchaser of personal property a demand by the rightful owner is a substantive, rather than a procedural, prerequisite to the bringing of an action for conversion by the owner ( Gillet v. Roberts, 57 N.Y. 28; 1 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N.Y. Civ. Prac., par. 206.01 and cases cited; 36 N.Y. Jur., Limitations and Laches, § 62; but, see, Restatement, Torts, §§ 229, 899, Comment c, p. 526). If that be so, then the Statute of Limitations did not begin to run until demand and refusal. By extension in reasoning, if the demand is requisite to creating the cause of action, the demand, or more, may also be requisite to creating the breach of warranty upon which the third-party complaint depends. Under the circumstances, it would be desirable that the pleadings in the third-party proceedings not be foreclosed prior to trial. (But see: Joannes Bros. Co. v. Lamborn, 237 N.Y. 207 ; cf. Moore v. Maddock, 224 App. Div. 401, 410.) Lastly, the record and the submissions by counsel are inadequate to determine the application and effect of Belgian or French law to the facts.

Concur — Breitel, J.P., Valente, McNally, Steuer and Witmer, JJ


Summaries of

Menzel v. List

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 6, 1964
22 A.D.2d 647 (N.Y. App. Div. 1964)

In Menzel v. List, 22 A.D.2d 647, 253 N.Y.S.2d 43, 44 (1st Dep't. 1964), on remand, 49 Misc.2d 300, 267 N.Y.S.2d 804 (Sup.Ct.N.Y.Co. 1966), modified on other grounds, 28 A.D. 516, 279 N.Y.S.2d 608 (1st Dep't. 1967), modification rev'd, 24 N.Y.2d 91, 298 N.Y.S.2d 979, 246 N.E.2d 742 (1969), it was held that "a demand by the rightful owner is a substantive, rather than a procedural, prerequisite to the bringing of an action for conversion by the owner."

Summary of this case from Zu Weimar v. Elicofon
Case details for

Menzel v. List

Case Details

Full title:ERNA MENZEL, Respondent, v. ALBERT A. LIST, Defendant-Appellant and…

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

Date published: Oct 6, 1964

Citations

22 A.D.2d 647 (N.Y. App. Div. 1964)

Citing Cases

Westminister Properties, Ltd. v. Kass

I would affirm Civil Court's orders which, inter alia, struck the affirmative defense of the Statute of…

Stroganoff-Scherbatoff v. Weldon

In opposition to these motions, plaintiff has submitted his own affidavit and a supplemental affidavit of…