Davis v. Reed

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Davis v. Reed

191 A.D.2d 348, 596 N.Y.S.2d 4, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2706

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

DecidedMarch 23, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 191 A.D.2d 348 (Davis v. Reed) 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

Davis v. Reed, 191 A.D.2d 348, 596 N.Y.S.2d 4, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2706 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered February 27, 1992, which, inter alia, denied plaintiffs motion to dismiss defendant Bard College’s affirmative defenses interposing the statute of limitations as against the causes of action for violation of the Dram Shop Act and negligence, and order of the same court and Justice, entered on or about February 13, 1992, which granted defendant Botstein’s motion for a change of venue to Dutchess County, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The claim that plaintiff was unable to remember the August 1988 incident underlying the action until late in 1990 implicitly concedes defendant College’s point that an issue of fact exists as to the date on which plaintiffs causes of action against the College accrued. The conclusory assertion of repressed memory due to "posttraumatic neurosis” is insufficient to invoke the tolling provisions of CPLR 208 (Hoffman v Hoffman, 162 AD2d 249, 250, citing McCarthy v Volkswagen of Am., 55 NY2d 543). Nor do plaintiffs conclusory assertions that defendant Reed resided in New York County when the action was commenced warrant retention of venue in that county (see, Morale v La Grange Inn, 160 AD2d 783, 784).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered February 27, 1992, which, inter alia, denied plaintiffs motion to dismiss defendant Bard College’s affirmative defenses interposing the statute of limitations as against the causes of action for violation of the Dram Shop Act and negligence, and order of the same court and Justice, entered on or about February 13, 1992, which granted defendant Botstein’s motion for a change of venue to Dutchess County, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The claim that plaintiff was unable to remember the August 1988 incident underlying the action until late in 1990 implicitly concedes defendant College’s point that an issue of fact exists as to the date on which plaintiffs causes of action against the College accrued. The conclusory assertion of repressed memory due to "posttraumatic neurosis” is insufficient to invoke the tolling provisions of CPLR 208 (Hoffman v Hoffman, 162 AD2d 249, 250, citing McCarthy v Volkswagen of Am., 55 NY2d 543). Nor do plaintiffs conclusory assertions that defendant Reed resided in New York County when the action was commenced warrant retention of venue in that county (see, Morale v La Grange Inn, 160 AD2d 783, 784).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 A.D.2d 348, 596 N.Y.S.2d 4, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2706, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-reed-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack