The following excerpt is from Kravitz v. Nankin, 200 Misc. 219 (N.Y. Dist. Ct. 1951):
The contention asserted in the second cause of action is likewise untenable. The argument that the action is actually one for money had and received and therefore comes within the purview of the six-year Statute of Limitations, is fallacious. (Gladstone v. Minkin, N. Y. L. J., Dec. 7, 1950, p. 1492, col. 6.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.