Badillo v. International Business Machines Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Badillo v. International Business Machines Corp.

237 A.D.2d 553, 655 N.Y.S.2d 990, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3024

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 31, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 237 A.D.2d 553 (Badillo v. International Business Machines Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Badillo v. International Business Machines Corp., 237 A.D.2d 553, 655 N.Y.S.2d 990, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3024 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action sounding in negligence and strict liability to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs Bonnie Riegler and Michael Riegler appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (D’Emilio, J.), entered January 12, 1996, which granted the separate motions of the defendants to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted by them as time-barred.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court correctly dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted by the appellants as time-barred, since the injured appellant’s symptoms of repetitive stress injury occurred more than three years previous to the commencement of this action (see, CPLR 214 [5]; Hayes v International Bus. Machs. Corp., 237 AD2d 254]). Sullivan, J. P., Joy, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action sounding in negligence and strict liability to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs Bonnie Riegler and Michael Riegler appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (D’Emilio, J.), entered January 12, 1996, which granted the separate motions of the defendants to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted by them as time-barred.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court correctly dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted by the appellants as time-barred, since the injured appellant’s symptoms of repetitive stress injury occurred more than three years previous to the commencement of this action (see, CPLR 214 [5]; Hayes v International Bus. Machs. Corp., 237 AD2d 254]). Sullivan, J. P., Joy, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

237 A.D.2d 553, 655 N.Y.S.2d 990, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3024, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/badillo-v-international-business-machines-corp-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack