Inforna v. Sir Formal of Massapequa, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Inforna v. Sir Formal of Massapequa, Inc.

141 A.D.2d 507, 529 N.Y.S.2d 338, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6320

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

DecidedJune 6, 1988

StatusPublished

This text of 141 A.D.2d 507 (Inforna v. Sir Formal of Massapequa, Inc.) 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

Inforna v. Sir Formal of Massapequa, Inc., 141 A.D.2d 507, 529 N.Y.S.2d 338, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6320 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for the alleged breach of an escrow agreement, the defendant Myron C. Fox appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), dated June 6, 1986, which denied his motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

While the appellant is correct in contending that the six-year Statute of Limitations applies to the plaintiff’s action (see, CPLR 213 [2]), the Supreme Court properly found that CPLR 206 (a) (1) also applies; hence, the plaintiff’s claim accrued not upon the date of execution of the escrow agreement, but long after that date when he first became aware of the facts which entitled him to demand compliance with the terms of that agreement (see, e.g., Bernstein v La Rue, 120 AD2d 476, lv dismissed 70 NY2d 746). As such, the plaintiff’s commencement of the present action was timely, and the appellant’s motion to dismiss was appropriately denied. Kunzeman, J. P., Kooper, Sullivan and Balletta, 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 the alleged breach of an escrow agreement, the defendant Myron C. Fox appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), dated June 6, 1986, which denied his motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

While the appellant is correct in contending that the six-year Statute of Limitations applies to the plaintiff’s action (see, CPLR 213 [2]), the Supreme Court properly found that CPLR 206 (a) (1) also applies; hence, the plaintiff’s claim accrued not upon the date of execution of the escrow agreement, but long after that date when he first became aware of the facts which entitled him to demand compliance with the terms of that agreement (see, e.g., Bernstein v La Rue, 120 AD2d 476, lv dismissed 70 NY2d 746). As such, the plaintiff’s commencement of the present action was timely, and the appellant’s motion to dismiss was appropriately denied. Kunzeman, J. P., Kooper, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

141 A.D.2d 507, 529 N.Y.S.2d 338, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6320, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/inforna-v-sir-formal-of-massapequa-inc-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack