Direnna v. Christensen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Direnna v. Christensen

57 A.D.3d 408, 869 N.Y.2d 505

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 30, 2008·Published·Cited by 3 cases

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

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.

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

Pincite

57 A.D.3d 408 (Direnna v. Christensen) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related