MOLNAR v. HEDDEN


260 N.J. Super. 133 (1992)

615 A.2d 647

SUSAN L. MOLNAR, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. DOUGLAS M. HEDDEN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Decided October 27, 1992.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Ronald M. Katkocin argued the cause for appellant (Markwardt & Katkocin, attorneys).

Elizabeth Macron argued the cause for respondent (Gertler & Hanna and Brotman & Graziano, attorneys; Elizabeth Macron and Nicholas Krochta, on the joint brief).

Before Judges PRESSLER, R.S. COHEN and MUIR, JR.


The opinion of the court was delivered by PRESSLER, P.J.A.D.

The important procedural question posed by this appeal is whether a counterclaim arising out of the transaction that gave rise to the complaint is barred if not filed within the applicable limitations period. We hold that although all the considerations generally governing disposition of an untimely motion to amend pleadings are relevant to a late motion to assert a counterclaim, the running of the statute...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases