Frunzi v. Sabol

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Frunzi v. Sabol

265 A.D.2d 525, 696 N.Y.S.2d 876, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10787

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

DecidedOctober 25, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 265 A.D.2d 525 (Frunzi v. Sabol) 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

Frunzi v. Sabol, 265 A.D.2d 525, 696 N.Y.S.2d 876, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10787 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (J. Leone, J.), dated September 9, 1998, which granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the action commenced under Index No. 13049/96 as time-barred and denied the plaintiffs’ cross motion for leave to enter a judgment against the defendants in the action commenced under Index No. 13216/94 upon their default in appearing or answering.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The action commenced under Index No. 13049/96 was properly dismissed as time-barred (see, Nevling v Chrysler Corp., 206 AD2d 221; Shepard v St. Agnes Hosp., 86 AD2d 628). Further, the denial of the plaintiffs’ cross motion was not an improvident exercise of discretion (see, Winfield v Garenani, 246 AD2d 537). Joy, J. P., Friedmann, Goldstein and McGinity, 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (J. Leone, J.), dated September 9, 1998, which granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the action commenced under Index No. 13049/96 as time-barred and denied the plaintiffs’ cross motion for leave to enter a judgment against the defendants in the action commenced under Index No. 13216/94 upon their default in appearing or answering.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The action commenced under Index No. 13049/96 was properly dismissed as time-barred (see, Nevling v Chrysler Corp., 206 AD2d 221; Shepard v St. Agnes Hosp., 86 AD2d 628). Further, the denial of the plaintiffs’ cross motion was not an improvident exercise of discretion (see, Winfield v Garenani, 246 AD2d 537). Joy, J. P., Friedmann, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D.2d 525, 696 N.Y.S.2d 876, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10787, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frunzi-v-sabol-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack