DiMaggio v. DiMaggio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

DiMaggio v. DiMaggio

278 A.D.2d 192, 716 N.Y.S.2d 904, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12523

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

DecidedDecember 4, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 278 A.D.2d 192 (DiMaggio v. DiMaggio) 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

DiMaggio v. DiMaggio, 278 A.D.2d 192, 716 N.Y.S.2d 904, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12523 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garson, J.), dated October 12, 1999, as denied that branch of his motion which was to dismiss the complaint as time-barred pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5).

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

[193]*193The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to dismiss the complaint as time-barred, as there are factual issues as to when the plaintiff discovered or should have discovered the alleged wrongdoing (see, Gingold v Beekman, 183 AD2d 870; Azoy v Fowler, 57 AD2d 541). Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garson, J.), dated October 12, 1999, as denied that branch of his motion which was to dismiss the complaint as time-barred pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5).

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

[193]*193The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to dismiss the complaint as time-barred, as there are factual issues as to when the plaintiff discovered or should have discovered the alleged wrongdoing (see, Gingold v Beekman, 183 AD2d 870; Azoy v Fowler, 57 AD2d 541). Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D.2d 192, 716 N.Y.S.2d 904, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12523, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dimaggio-v-dimaggio-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack