Esposito v. Alcamo Supply & Contracting Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Esposito v. Alcamo Supply & Contracting Corp.

261 A.D.2d 435, 687 N.Y.S.2d 302, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4778

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 10, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 261 A.D.2d 435 (Esposito v. Alcamo Supply & Contracting Corp.) 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

Esposito v. Alcamo Supply & Contracting Corp., 261 A.D.2d 435, 687 N.Y.S.2d 302, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4778 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Henry, J.), dated May 5, 1998, which denied its motion to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to, inter alia, CPLR 3211 (a) (5) and (7).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court correctly denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The plaintiff’s amended complaint states a cause of action for breach of contract (see, Merritt v Hooshang Constr., 216 AD2d 542). Further, this cause of action, which accrued in 1993, is not time-barred (see, CPLR 213 [2]). S. Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann, Luciano and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Henry, J.), dated May 5, 1998, which denied its motion to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to, inter alia, CPLR 3211 (a) (5) and (7).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court correctly denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The plaintiff’s amended complaint states a cause of action for breach of contract (see, Merritt v Hooshang Constr., 216 AD2d 542). Further, this cause of action, which accrued in 1993, is not time-barred (see, CPLR 213 [2]). S. Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann, Luciano and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D.2d 435, 687 N.Y.S.2d 302, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4778, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/esposito-v-alcamo-supply-contracting-corp-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack