LaGreca v. City of Niagara Falls

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

LaGreca v. City of Niagara Falls

244 A.D.2d 862, 665 N.Y.S.2d 229, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12184

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

DecidedNovember 19, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 244 A.D.2d 862 (LaGreca v. City of Niagara Falls) 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

LaGreca v. City of Niagara Falls, 244 A.D.2d 862, 665 N.Y.S.2d 229, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12184 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order and judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) on the ground that it is time-barred by the six-year Statute of Limitations governing breach of contract actions (see, CPLR 213 [2]). The cause of action for breach of contract accrued at the time of the breach (see, Ely-Cruikshank Co. v Bank of Montreal, 81 NY2d 399, 402), i.e., when defendant terminated life insurance coverage for plaintiffs decedent in June 1988, allegedly in violation of a collective bargaining agreement. This action was not commenced until more than seven years later. Plaintiffs reliance on Kelly v Security Mut. Life Ins. Co. (186 NY 16) and Thompson v Postal Life Ins. Co. (226 NY 363) is misplaced. In those cases, the actions were against the insurers for payment of insurance proceeds, while this is an action against an employer for the alleged breach of a collective bargaining agreement requiring it to maintain life insurance coverage. In view of our determination, we do not address the remaining contentions of the parties. (Appeal from Order and Judgment of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Joslin, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Pine, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Callahan and Do-err, JJ.

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

—Order and judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) on the ground that it is time-barred by the six-year Statute of Limitations governing breach of contract actions (see, CPLR 213 [2]). The cause of action for breach of contract accrued at the time of the breach (see, Ely-Cruikshank Co. v Bank of Montreal, 81 NY2d 399, 402), i.e., when defendant terminated life insurance coverage for plaintiffs decedent in June 1988, allegedly in violation of a collective bargaining agreement. This action was not commenced until more than seven years later. Plaintiffs reliance on Kelly v Security Mut. Life Ins. Co. (186 NY 16) and Thompson v Postal Life Ins. Co. (226 NY 363) is misplaced. In those cases, the actions were against the insurers for payment of insurance proceeds, while this is an action against an employer for the alleged breach of a collective bargaining agreement requiring it to maintain life insurance coverage. In view of our determination, we do not address the remaining contentions of the parties. (Appeal from Order and Judgment of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Joslin, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Pine, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Callahan and Do-err, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D.2d 862, 665 N.Y.S.2d 229, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12184, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lagreca-v-city-of-niagara-falls-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack