Kleinman v. Lack

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kleinman v. Lack

6 A.D.2d 1046, 179 N.Y.S.2d 194, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4672

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

DecidedOctober 6, 1958

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 6 A.D.2d 1046 (Kleinman v. Lack) 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

Kleinman v. Lack, 6 A.D.2d 1046, 179 N.Y.S.2d 194, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4672 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for malpractice, the appeal is from an order denying a motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the action is barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted. Alleged fraud in concealing the injury does not preclude pleading the Statute of Limitations as a defense. (Ranalli v. Breed, 251 App. Div. 750, affd. 277 N. Y. 630; Conklin v. Draper, 229 App. Div. 227, affd. 254 N. Y. 620; Tullock v. Haselo, 218 App. Div. 313.) It is conceded that the action was not commenced within the requisite two years from the date of its accrual. Apart from such concession, however, it is our opinion that the defense of the Statute of Limitations pleaded in the answer “is founded upon facts established prima facie by documentary evidence ”, as required by the provisions of the rule (Rules Civ. Prac., rule 113). Such documentary evidence consists of the summons and complaint submitted in support of the motion and which demonstrate, prima fade, that the action was not commenced within the two-year time limitation prescribed for an action to recover damages for malpractice (Civ. Prac. Act, § 50, subd. 1). Nolan, P. J., Murphy, Ughetta, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, 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 malpractice, the appeal is from an order denying a motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the action is barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted. Alleged fraud in concealing the injury does not preclude pleading the Statute of Limitations as a defense. (Ranalli v. Breed, 251 App. Div. 750, affd. 277 N. Y. 630; Conklin v. Draper, 229 App. Div. 227, affd. 254 N. Y. 620; Tullock v. Haselo, 218 App. Div. 313.) It is conceded that the action was not commenced within the requisite two years from the date of its accrual. Apart from such concession, however, it is our opinion that the defense of the Statute of Limitations pleaded in the answer “is founded upon facts established prima facie by documentary evidence ”, as required by the provisions of the rule (Rules Civ. Prac., rule 113). Such documentary evidence consists of the summons and complaint submitted in support of the motion and which demonstrate, prima fade, that the action was not commenced within the two-year time limitation prescribed for an action to recover damages for malpractice (Civ. Prac. Act, § 50, subd. 1). Nolan, P. J., Murphy, Ughetta, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 A.D.2d 1046, 179 N.Y.S.2d 194, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4672, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kleinman-v-lack-nyappdiv-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack