Diebel v. Port Jefferson School District

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Diebel v. Port Jefferson School District

249 A.D.2d 391, 670 N.Y.S.2d 798, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3963

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

DecidedApril 13, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 249 A.D.2d 391 (Diebel v. Port Jefferson School District) 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

Diebel v. Port Jefferson School District, 249 A.D.2d 391, 670 N.Y.S.2d 798, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3963 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a discovery proceeding pursuant to SCPA 2103, the petitioner appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County (Prudenti, S.), dated April 18, 1997, as granted the respondent’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the petition on the ground that the petitioner’s claim is barred by the Statute of Limitations.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs payable by the estate.

The Surrogate’s Court correctly determined that the petitioner’s claim was time-barred, as the instant proceeding was not commenced within one year and 90 days after the happening of the event upon which the claim is based (see, General Municipal Law § 50-i; Klein v City of Yonkers, 53 NY2d 1011, 1012). Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

—In a discovery proceeding pursuant to SCPA 2103, the petitioner appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County (Prudenti, S.), dated April 18, 1997, as granted the respondent’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the petition on the ground that the petitioner’s claim is barred by the Statute of Limitations.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs payable by the estate.

The Surrogate’s Court correctly determined that the petitioner’s claim was time-barred, as the instant proceeding was not commenced within one year and 90 days after the happening of the event upon which the claim is based (see, General Municipal Law § 50-i; Klein v City of Yonkers, 53 NY2d 1011, 1012). Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 391, 670 N.Y.S.2d 798, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3963, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/diebel-v-port-jefferson-school-district-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack