County of Niagara v. Town of Royalton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

County of Niagara v. Town of Royalton

48 A.D.3d 1072, 849 N.Y.S.2d 822

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

DecidedFebruary 1, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 48 A.D.3d 1072 (County of Niagara v. Town of Royalton) 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

County of Niagara v. Town of Royalton, 48 A.D.3d 1072, 849 N.Y.S.2d 822 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Richard C. Kloch, Sr., A.J.), entered May 31, 2007. The order denied defendant’s pre-answer motion to dismiss the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order denying its pre-answer motion seeking dismissal of the complaint on the grounds that plaintiff, County of Niagara (County), lacks the capacity to sue and that the action is time-barred. Contrary to defendant’s contention, the County was authorized by a resolution of the County Legislature to commence this action through the County Attorney and thus did not lack capacity to sue (cf. County of Sullivan v Town of Thompson, 99 AD2d 574, 574-575 [1984]). In addition, the six-year statute of limitations applies to this action because it is one for “money had and received [and thus] is one of quasi-contract or of contract implied-in-law” (Board of Educ. of Cold Spring Harbor Cent. School Dist. v Rettaliata, 78 NY2d 128, 138 [1991]; see CPLR 213 [2]; see also Strough v Jefferson County, 119 NY 212, 219-220 [1890]), and this action thus is not time-barred. We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are lacking in merit. Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Centra, Fahey, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Richard C. Kloch, Sr., A.J.), entered May 31, 2007. The order denied defendant’s pre-answer motion to dismiss the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order denying its pre-answer motion seeking dismissal of the complaint on the grounds that plaintiff, County of Niagara (County), lacks the capacity to sue and that the action is time-barred. Contrary to defendant’s contention, the County was authorized by a resolution of the County Legislature to commence this action through the County Attorney and thus did not lack capacity to sue (cf. County of Sullivan v Town of Thompson, 99 AD2d 574, 574-575 [1984]). In addition, the six-year statute of limitations applies to this action because it is one for “money had and received [and thus] is one of quasi-contract or of contract implied-in-law” (Board of Educ. of Cold Spring Harbor Cent. School Dist. v Rettaliata, 78 NY2d 128, 138 [1991]; see CPLR 213 [2]; see also Strough v Jefferson County, 119 NY 212, 219-220 [1890]), and this action thus is not time-barred. We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are lacking in merit. Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Centra, Fahey, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 A.D.3d 1072, 849 N.Y.S.2d 822, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/county-of-niagara-v-town-of-royalton-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack