Emil v. James Felt & Co.

45 A.D.2d 677, 356 N.Y.S.2d 303, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4808
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 4, 1974
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 45 A.D.2d 677 (Emil v. James Felt & Co.) 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
Emil v. James Felt & Co., 45 A.D.2d 677, 356 N.Y.S.2d 303, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4808 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, [678]*678entered April 5, 1974 denying plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the affirmative defenses in the defendant’s answer and denying defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint unanimously modified, on the law, to dismiss the third and seventh affirmative defenses in defendant’s answer and, as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements. In the third affirmative defense it is asserted that the cause of action alleged in the complaint occurred more than three years prior to the commencement of this action and is therefore barred “ by all applicable statutes of limitations.” However, the complaint is based upon a cause of action sounding in indemnity and as such, is governed by the six-year Statute of Limitations (see Hansen v. City of New York, 43 Misc 2d 1048; Rieger v. Frankstram Realties, 68 N. Y. S. 2d 243; CPLR 213, subd. 2). Since the cause of action did not accrue until 1972 when actual payment of the judgment was made (Musco v. Conte, 22 A D 2d 121; Satta v. City of New York, 272 App. Div. 782), clearly, this action which was instituted in 1973 is not time-barred. In addition, the seventh affirmative defense alleging that plaintiffs failed to comply with CPLR 1401 is without merit since that section relates solely to contribution among tort-feasors and has no applicability in an action for indemnity (see 2A Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N. Y. Civ. Prac., § 1401.03). Concur — Nunez, J. P., Kupferman, Murphy, Lupiano and Tilzer, JJ.

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

Related

Methodist Hospital v. Leon D. De Matteis Construction Corp.
67 A.D.2d 855 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1979)
Rice v. Baron
456 F. Supp. 1361 (S.D. New York, 1978)
Howard v. Chalk
58 A.D.2d 526 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
45 A.D.2d 677, 356 N.Y.S.2d 303, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4808, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/emil-v-james-felt-co-nyappdiv-1974.