Badillo v. International Business Machines Corp.

237 A.D.2d 553, 655 N.Y.S.2d 990, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3024
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 31, 1997·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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

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).

237 A.D.2d 553 (Badillo v. International Business Machines Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Liverpool v. Xerox Corp.
242 A.D.2d 566 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Hartman v. International Business Machines Corp.
240 A.D.2d 632 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)