Ibekweh v. Wims

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ibekweh v. Wims

193 A.D.2d 568, 603 N.Y.S.2d 717, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5363

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

DecidedMay 27, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 193 A.D.2d 568 (Ibekweh v. Wims) 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

Ibekweh v. Wims, 193 A.D.2d 568, 603 N.Y.S.2d 717, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5363 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Schoenfeld, J.), entered July 9, 1991, which dismissed plaintiff’s amended complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, to reinstate the cause of action alleging harassment and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

[569]*569Plaintiff’s amended complaint served on defendant two years after the IAS Court granted him leave to replead is barred under the equitable doctrine of laches (see, Edenwald Contr. Co. v City of New York, 60 NY2d 957). However, as respondents concede, the IAS Court improperly dismissed defendant’s cause of action pleading harassment since the original cause of action for harassment was unaffected by and survived the first dismissal order. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Schoenfeld, J.), entered July 9, 1991, which dismissed plaintiff’s amended complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, to reinstate the cause of action alleging harassment and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

[569]*569Plaintiff’s amended complaint served on defendant two years after the IAS Court granted him leave to replead is barred under the equitable doctrine of laches (see, Edenwald Contr. Co. v City of New York, 60 NY2d 957). However, as respondents concede, the IAS Court improperly dismissed defendant’s cause of action pleading harassment since the original cause of action for harassment was unaffected by and survived the first dismissal order. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

193 A.D.2d 568, 603 N.Y.S.2d 717, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5363, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ibekweh-v-wims-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack