Day v. Rudolph

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Day v. Rudolph

28 A.D.3d 232, 811 N.Y.S.2d 566

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

DecidedApril 6, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 28 A.D.3d 232 (Day v. Rudolph) 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

Day v. Rudolph, 28 A.D.3d 232, 811 N.Y.S.2d 566 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered February 23, 2005, which, in an action for personal injuries arising out of an automobile accident, granted defendant’s postanswer motion to dismiss the complaint as barred by the statute of limitations, and denied plaintiff’s cross motion to dismiss defendant’s affirmative defense of the statute of limitations, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s answer asserted the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense. Assuming, without deciding, that the answer was late, we would deem it timely interposed under the circumstances presented (CPLR 3012 [d]). Accordingly, the action was properly dismissed as time-barred. Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Sullivan, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.

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

Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered February 23, 2005, which, in an action for personal injuries arising out of an automobile accident, granted defendant’s postanswer motion to dismiss the complaint as barred by the statute of limitations, and denied plaintiff’s cross motion to dismiss defendant’s affirmative defense of the statute of limitations, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s answer asserted the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense. Assuming, without deciding, that the answer was late, we would deem it timely interposed under the circumstances presented (CPLR 3012 [d]). Accordingly, the action was properly dismissed as time-barred. Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Sullivan, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 A.D.3d 232, 811 N.Y.S.2d 566, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/day-v-rudolph-nyappdiv-2006.