DiPilato v. Martinelli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

DiPilato v. Martinelli

274 A.D.2d 412, 711 N.Y.S.2d 780, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7724

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 10, 2000·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—In an action pursuant to RPAPL article 15 to determine claims to real property, the defendants third-party plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Ponterio, J.), dated July 16, 1999, which granted the motion of the third-party defendant Ridge Abstract Corp., to dismiss the amended third-party complaint insofar as asserted against it as time-barred.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly determined that the cause of action interposed against the third-party defendant Ridge Abstract Corp., whether characterized as being based on negligence or implied indemnification, was barred by the relevant Statutes of Limitation (see, CPLR 213 [2]; 214 [5]; Green Point Sav. Bank v Dan’s Supreme Supermarket, 199 AD2d 304; see also, Cecala v Title Guar. Co., 45 Mise 2d 986; Hansen v City of New York, 43 Misc 2d 1048). Joy, J. P., Friedmann, Krausman and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action pursuant to RPAPL article 15 to determine claims to real property, the defendants third-party plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Ponterio, J.), dated July 16, 1999, which granted the motion of the third-party defendant Ridge Abstract Corp., to dismiss the amended third-party complaint insofar as asserted against it as time-barred.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly determined that the cause of action interposed against the third-party defendant Ridge Abstract Corp., whether characterized as being based on negligence or implied indemnification, was barred by the relevant Statutes of Limitation (see, CPLR 213 [2]; 214 [5]; Green Point Sav. Bank v Dan’s Supreme Supermarket, 199 AD2d 304; see also, Cecala v Title Guar. Co., 45 Mise 2d 986; Hansen v City of New York, 43 Misc 2d 1048). Joy, J. P., Friedmann, Krausman and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

DiPilato v. Martinelli, 274 A.D.2d 412, 711 N.Y.S.2d 780, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7724 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

274 A.D.2d 412 (DiPilato v. Martinelli) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related