King Kullen Grocery Co. v. Long Island Railroad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

King Kullen Grocery Co. v. Long Island Railroad

112 A.D.2d 194, 491 N.Y.S.2d 417, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55944

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

DecidedJuly 8, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 112 A.D.2d 194 (King Kullen Grocery Co. v. Long Island Railroad) 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

King Kullen Grocery Co. v. Long Island Railroad, 112 A.D.2d 194, 491 N.Y.S.2d 417, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55944 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover money damages for injury to property, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Christ, J.), dated December 20, 1983, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5).

Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint denied.

Special Term erred in dismissing the complaint as barred by the short Statute of Limitations applicable to tort actions pursuant to Public Authorities Law § 1276 (2), (6). The liability alleged in the complaint has its genesis in the contractual relationship between the parties, and the plaintiff seeks to recover, for damage to property. Under the analysis articulated in Sears, Roebuck & Co. v Enco Assoc. (43 NY2d 389) and Baratta v Kozlowski (94 AD2d 454), the six-year contract Statute of Limitations is applicable. Mangano, J. P., Thompson, Brown and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover money damages for injury to property, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Christ, J.), dated December 20, 1983, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5).

Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint denied.

Special Term erred in dismissing the complaint as barred by the short Statute of Limitations applicable to tort actions pursuant to Public Authorities Law § 1276 (2), (6). The liability alleged in the complaint has its genesis in the contractual relationship between the parties, and the plaintiff seeks to recover, for damage to property. Under the analysis articulated in Sears, Roebuck & Co. v Enco Assoc. (43 NY2d 389) and Baratta v Kozlowski (94 AD2d 454), the six-year contract Statute of Limitations is applicable. Mangano, J. P., Thompson, Brown and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 A.D.2d 194, 491 N.Y.S.2d 417, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55944, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/king-kullen-grocery-co-v-long-island-railroad-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack