Harr v. Biernbaum

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Harr v. Biernbaum

251 A.D.2d 995, 673 N.Y.S.2d 342, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7006

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

DecidedJune 10, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 251 A.D.2d 995 (Harr v. Biernbaum) 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

Harr v. Biernbaum, 251 A.D.2d 995, 673 N.Y.S.2d 342, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7006 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order and judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint on the merits because the action was not properly commenced pursuant to CPLR 304 and the Statute of Limitations had expired (see, Dawson v Bastine, 231 AD2d 548; Shivers v International Serv. Sys., 220 AD2d 357). The maximum 10-year tolling period set forth in CPLR 208 is measured from the date of accrual of plaintiffs cause of action, not from the date of plaintiffs release from the Rochester Psychiatric Center (see, Rivera v Brookdale Hosp. Med. Ctr., 205 AD2d 677). Although plaintiff contends that he has an additional cause of action for fraud that he recently discovered (see, CPLR 213 [8]), he has made no evidentiary showing to support that contention (see, Sober v Kalina, 208 AD2d 1140; Tenenbaum v Long Beach Mem. Hosp., 206 AD2d 973). (Appeal from Order and Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Sirkin, J. — Dismiss Pleading.) Present — Pine, J. P., Lawton, Wisner and Balio, JJ.

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

—Order and judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint on the merits because the action was not properly commenced pursuant to CPLR 304 and the Statute of Limitations had expired (see, Dawson v Bastine, 231 AD2d 548; Shivers v International Serv. Sys., 220 AD2d 357). The maximum 10-year tolling period set forth in CPLR 208 is measured from the date of accrual of plaintiffs cause of action, not from the date of plaintiffs release from the Rochester Psychiatric Center (see, Rivera v Brookdale Hosp. Med. Ctr., 205 AD2d 677). Although plaintiff contends that he has an additional cause of action for fraud that he recently discovered (see, CPLR 213 [8]), he has made no evidentiary showing to support that contention (see, Sober v Kalina, 208 AD2d 1140; Tenenbaum v Long Beach Mem. Hosp., 206 AD2d 973). (Appeal from Order and Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Sirkin, J. — Dismiss Pleading.) Present — Pine, J. P., Lawton, Wisner and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 995, 673 N.Y.S.2d 342, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7006, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harr-v-biernbaum-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack