Cayuga Partners L. L. C. v. Essex Capital Partners, Ltd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cayuga Partners L. L. C. v. Essex Capital Partners, Ltd.

282 A.D.2d 493, 722 N.Y.S.2d 894, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3514

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

DecidedApril 9, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 282 A.D.2d 493 (Cayuga Partners L. L. C. v. Essex Capital Partners, Ltd.) 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

Cayuga Partners L. L. C. v. Essex Capital Partners, Ltd., 282 A.D.2d 493, 722 N.Y.S.2d 894, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3514 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover moneys belonging to a limited liability company of which the plaintiff is a member, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (DiBlasi, J.), dated July 5, 2000, which granted the [494]*494defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) and (7).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the complaint, which states a cause of action to recover damages for conversion, is barred by the applicable three-year Statute of Limitations, since the alleged conversion occurred in August 1996 and the action was commenced in February 2000 (see, CPLR 214 [4]; Vigilant Ins. Co. v Housing Auth., 87 NY2d 36, 44). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the motion to dismiss the complaint.

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J. P., Altman, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover moneys belonging to a limited liability company of which the plaintiff is a member, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (DiBlasi, J.), dated July 5, 2000, which granted the [494]*494defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) and (7).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the complaint, which states a cause of action to recover damages for conversion, is barred by the applicable three-year Statute of Limitations, since the alleged conversion occurred in August 1996 and the action was commenced in February 2000 (see, CPLR 214 [4]; Vigilant Ins. Co. v Housing Auth., 87 NY2d 36, 44). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the motion to dismiss the complaint.

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J. P., Altman, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 493, 722 N.Y.S.2d 894, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3514, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cayuga-partners-l-l-c-v-essex-capital-partners-ltd-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack