Citrak v. Town of Chenango

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Citrak v. Town of Chenango

166 A.D.2d 741, 561 N.Y.S.2d 612, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11603

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

DecidedOctober 4, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 166 A.D.2d 741 (Citrak v. Town of Chenango) 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

Citrak v. Town of Chenango, 166 A.D.2d 741, 561 N.Y.S.2d 612, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11603 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Smyk, J.), entered October 25,1989 in Broome County, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

We affirm the dismissal of the complaint. Plaintiff all but concedes in his brief that his second cause of action for property damages against defendant is time barred and he does not dispute defendant’s proof that the latest date such damages could have occurred is March 1986, over three years before the suit was commenced (see, CPLR 214 [4]). As for the cause of action alleging a violation of 42 USC § 1983, that was also barred by the three-year Statute of Limitations (see, CPLR 214 [5]; Owens v Okure, 488 US 235; 423 S. Salina St. v City of Syracuse, 68 NY2d 474, cert denied and appeal dismissed 481 US 1008) insofar as plaintiff’s claim apparently accrued in June 1985 and the action was not commenced until four years later. Plaintiff’s remaining arguments have either been rendered academic by our disposition or found to be lacking in merit.

Order affirmed, with costs. Casey, J. P., Weiss, Levine, Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Smyk, J.), entered October 25,1989 in Broome County, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

We affirm the dismissal of the complaint. Plaintiff all but concedes in his brief that his second cause of action for property damages against defendant is time barred and he does not dispute defendant’s proof that the latest date such damages could have occurred is March 1986, over three years before the suit was commenced (see, CPLR 214 [4]). As for the cause of action alleging a violation of 42 USC § 1983, that was also barred by the three-year Statute of Limitations (see, CPLR 214 [5]; Owens v Okure, 488 US 235; 423 S. Salina St. v City of Syracuse, 68 NY2d 474, cert denied and appeal dismissed 481 US 1008) insofar as plaintiff’s claim apparently accrued in June 1985 and the action was not commenced until four years later. Plaintiff’s remaining arguments have either been rendered academic by our disposition or found to be lacking in merit.

Order affirmed, with costs. Casey, J. P., Weiss, Levine, Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 A.D.2d 741, 561 N.Y.S.2d 612, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11603, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/citrak-v-town-of-chenango-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack