Hartman v. International Business Machines Corp.

240 A.D.2d 632, 659 N.Y.S.2d 1005, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6811

This text of 240 A.D.2d 632 (Hartman v. International Business Machines Corp.) 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
Hartman v. International Business Machines Corp., 240 A.D.2d 632, 659 N.Y.S.2d 1005, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6811 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), dated May 6, 1996, which granted the separate motions of the defendants Dell Computer Corporation and Brother International Corporation to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them as time barred.

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

The Supreme Court correctly dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants Dell Computer Corporation [633]*633(hereinafter Dell) and Brother International Corporation as time-barred, where the injured plaintiffs symptoms of repetitive stress injury occurred more than three years previous to the commencement of this action (see, CPLR 214 [5]; Badillo v International Bus. Machs. Corp., 237 AD2d 553; Hayes v International Bus. Machs. Corp., 237 AD2d 254). Moreover, the complaint, insofar as asserted against Dell, fails to state a cause of action, where the plaintiff Audrey Hartman’s injuries occurred more than three years previous to her use of Dell’s products (see, Edmond v International Bus. Machs. Corp., 238 AD2d 303). Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Hayes v. International Business Machines Corp.
237 A.D.2d 254 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Badillo v. International Business Machines Corp.
237 A.D.2d 553 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Edmond v. International Business Machines Corp.
238 A.D.2d 303 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
240 A.D.2d 632, 659 N.Y.S.2d 1005, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6811, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hartman-v-international-business-machines-corp-nyappdiv-1997.