Karczewski v. Sharpe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Karczewski v. Sharpe

260 A.D.2d 606, 688 N.Y.S.2d 673, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4294

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

DecidedApril 26, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 260 A.D.2d 606 (Karczewski v. Sharpe) 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

Karczewski v. Sharpe, 260 A.D.2d 606, 688 N.Y.S.2d 673, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4294 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for assault and battery, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (D’Emilio, J.), dated April 2, 1998, which denied her motion for leave to amend her complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs motion for leave to amend her complaint to assert a cause of action alleging a violation of Executive Law § 296 (2) (a) was properly denied as it was made after the expiration of the three-year Statute of Limitations under CPLR 214 (2). Furthermore, the cause of action alleging a violation of Executive Law § 296 (2) (a) cannot relate back to the filing of the original complaint as that action was not timely commenced (see, Maldonado v Maryland Rail Commuter Serv. Admin., 239 AD2d 740, affd 91 NY2d 467; Owens v Palm Tree Nursing Home, 50 AD2d 865). Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for assault and battery, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (D’Emilio, J.), dated April 2, 1998, which denied her motion for leave to amend her complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs motion for leave to amend her complaint to assert a cause of action alleging a violation of Executive Law § 296 (2) (a) was properly denied as it was made after the expiration of the three-year Statute of Limitations under CPLR 214 (2). Furthermore, the cause of action alleging a violation of Executive Law § 296 (2) (a) cannot relate back to the filing of the original complaint as that action was not timely commenced (see, Maldonado v Maryland Rail Commuter Serv. Admin., 239 AD2d 740, affd 91 NY2d 467; Owens v Palm Tree Nursing Home, 50 AD2d 865). Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.D.2d 606, 688 N.Y.S.2d 673, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4294, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/karczewski-v-sharpe-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack