Grant v. Marshall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Grant v. Marshall

270 A.D.2d 229, 704 N.Y.S.2d 835, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2544

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

DecidedMarch 6, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 270 A.D.2d 229 (Grant v. Marshall) 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

Grant v. Marshall, 270 A.D.2d 229, 704 N.Y.S.2d 835, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2544 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action pursuant to CPLR 3213 for summary judgment in lieu of complaint to recover money owed on a promissory note, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), dated July 15, 1999, as denied that branch of his cross motion which was to dismiss the action as time-barred.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly determined that issues of fact exist as to whether the defendant’s May 19, 1995, payment to the plaintiff of the sum of $60,000 revived the debt and took the plaintiff’s claim out of the Statute of Limitations (see, Stabulas v Brooks Piece Dye Works Corp., III AD2d 803, 804; Matter of McDonald, 79 AD2d 754). Bracken, J. P., McGinity, Luciano and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action pursuant to CPLR 3213 for summary judgment in lieu of complaint to recover money owed on a promissory note, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), dated July 15, 1999, as denied that branch of his cross motion which was to dismiss the action as time-barred.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly determined that issues of fact exist as to whether the defendant’s May 19, 1995, payment to the plaintiff of the sum of $60,000 revived the debt and took the plaintiff’s claim out of the Statute of Limitations (see, Stabulas v Brooks Piece Dye Works Corp., III AD2d 803, 804; Matter of McDonald, 79 AD2d 754). Bracken, J. P., McGinity, Luciano and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D.2d 229, 704 N.Y.S.2d 835, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2544, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grant-v-marshall-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack