Kameraj v. Joseph

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kameraj v. Joseph

81 A.D.3d 556, 917 N.Y.S.2d 561

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

DecidedFebruary 22, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 81 A.D.3d 556 (Kameraj v. Joseph) 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

Kameraj v. Joseph, 81 A.D.3d 556, 917 N.Y.S.2d 561 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Cynthia S. Kern, J), entered June 2, 2009, which, in an action for personal injuries, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint as barred by the statute of limitations, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

It is undisputed that plaintiff served the summons and complaint on defendant after the applicable three-year statute of limitations had expired (see CPLR 214 [5]). The motion court [557]*557correctly found that, for purposes of the relation-back doctrine, defendant was not united in interest with the timely sued corporation because defendant could raise the defense that he is not personally liable for the corporate party’s conduct (see Raymond v Melohn Props., Inc., 47 AD3d 504 [2008]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Acosta, Renwick and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Cynthia S. Kern, J), entered June 2, 2009, which, in an action for personal injuries, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint as barred by the statute of limitations, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

It is undisputed that plaintiff served the summons and complaint on defendant after the applicable three-year statute of limitations had expired (see CPLR 214 [5]). The motion court [557]*557correctly found that, for purposes of the relation-back doctrine, defendant was not united in interest with the timely sued corporation because defendant could raise the defense that he is not personally liable for the corporate party’s conduct (see Raymond v Melohn Props., Inc., 47 AD3d 504 [2008]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Acosta, Renwick and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 A.D.3d 556, 917 N.Y.S.2d 561, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kameraj-v-joseph-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack