Direnna v. Christensen
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.
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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
57 A.D.3d 408, 869 N.Y.2d 505, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/direnna-v-christensen-nyappdiv-2008.