Favale v. Columbian Mutual Life Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Favale v. Columbian Mutual Life Insurance

8 A.D.3d 333, 777 N.Y.S.2d 722, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7821

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

DecidedJune 7, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 8 A.D.3d 333 (Favale v. Columbian Mutual Life Insurance) 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

Favale v. Columbian Mutual Life Insurance, 8 A.D.3d 333, 777 N.Y.S.2d 722, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7821 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiffs appeal from án order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barasch, J.), dated February 21, 2003, which granted the motion of the defendant Columbian Mutual Life Insurance Company to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (3), (5), and (7), and granted the separate motion of the defendant Gerard Breitner to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) and (7).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The plaintiffs sought to recover damages, inter alia, for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and violation of General Business Law § 349. However, each cause of action set forth in the amended verified complaint was asserted after the applicable statute of limitations, and is thus time-barred (see Gaidon v Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 96 NY2d 201 [2001]; National Life Ins. Co. v Hall & Co. of N.Y., 67 NY2d 1021 [1986]; Cappelli v Berkshire Life Ins. Co., 276 AD2d 458 [2000]). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted the motions to dismiss the complaint.

The plaintiffs’ remaining contention is without merit. Florio, J.P., Adams, Cozier and Lifson, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiffs appeal from án order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barasch, J.), dated February 21, 2003, which granted the motion of the defendant Columbian Mutual Life Insurance Company to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (3), (5), and (7), and granted the separate motion of the defendant Gerard Breitner to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) and (7).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The plaintiffs sought to recover damages, inter alia, for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and violation of General Business Law § 349. However, each cause of action set forth in the amended verified complaint was asserted after the applicable statute of limitations, and is thus time-barred (see Gaidon v Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 96 NY2d 201 [2001]; National Life Ins. Co. v Hall & Co. of N.Y., 67 NY2d 1021 [1986]; Cappelli v Berkshire Life Ins. Co., 276 AD2d 458 [2000]). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted the motions to dismiss the complaint.

The plaintiffs’ remaining contention is without merit. Florio, J.P., Adams, Cozier and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.D.3d 333, 777 N.Y.S.2d 722, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7821, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/favale-v-columbian-mutual-life-insurance-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack