Direnna v. Christensen

57 A.D.3d 408, 869 N.Y.2d 505
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 30, 2008
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 57 A.D.3d 408 (Direnna v. Christensen) 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
Direnna v. Christensen, 57 A.D.3d 408, 869 N.Y.2d 505 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

Plaintiff subtenant’s action is time-barred since the first overcharge alleged by him occurred in April 2003 and this action was not commenced until September 2007 (see Mozes v Shanaman, 21 AD3d 854 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 715 [2006]; CPLR 213-a). Plaintiff may not avoid the applicable four-year statute of limitations by amending his complaint to withdraw his claim for earlier months of rent overcharge (see e.g. Reddington v Staten Is. Univ. Hosp., 11 NY3d 80, 87-88 [2008]; Bones v Prudential Fin., Inc., 54 AD3d 589 [2008]). Concur — Lippman, EJ., Gonzalez, Nardelli, Buckley and Acosta, JJ.

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

Related

Conason v. Megan Holding, LLC
29 N.E.3d 215 (New York Court of Appeals, 2015)
Conason v. Megan Holding, LLC
109 A.D.3d 724 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
57 A.D.3d 408, 869 N.Y.2d 505, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/direnna-v-christensen-nyappdiv-2008.