Etienne v. H. Schrier & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Etienne v. H. Schrier & Co.

53 A.D.3d 470, 859 N.Y.S.2d 571

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

DecidedJuly 1, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 53 A.D.3d 470 (Etienne v. H. Schrier & 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

Etienne v. H. Schrier & Co., 53 A.D.3d 470, 859 N.Y.S.2d 571 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kelly, J.), dated July 12, 2007, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) to dismiss the complaint as time-barred.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is undisputed that the plaintiffs cause of action alleging negligence accrued on January 8, 2003. Accordingly, pursuant to the three-year limitations period for negligence actions set forth in CPLR 214 (5), the last date upon which the plaintiff could timely commence the action was January 8, 2006. However, the action was commenced by the filing of a summons and complaint on January 10, 2006 and therefore was untimely (see Spirig v Evans, 26 AD3d 425 [2006]). Contrary to the plaintiffs contentions, there is no basis in the record for a finding that the defendant either waived the defense of the statute of limitations or engaged in conduct which would have given rise to an estoppel (id.). Fisher, J.P., Florio, Angiolillo, Dickerson and Belen, 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 personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kelly, J.), dated July 12, 2007, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) to dismiss the complaint as time-barred.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is undisputed that the plaintiffs cause of action alleging negligence accrued on January 8, 2003. Accordingly, pursuant to the three-year limitations period for negligence actions set forth in CPLR 214 (5), the last date upon which the plaintiff could timely commence the action was January 8, 2006. However, the action was commenced by the filing of a summons and complaint on January 10, 2006 and therefore was untimely (see Spirig v Evans, 26 AD3d 425 [2006]). Contrary to the plaintiffs contentions, there is no basis in the record for a finding that the defendant either waived the defense of the statute of limitations or engaged in conduct which would have given rise to an estoppel (id.). Fisher, J.P., Florio, Angiolillo, Dickerson and Belen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 A.D.3d 470, 859 N.Y.S.2d 571, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/etienne-v-h-schrier-co-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack