Lewis v. Worzman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lewis v. Worzman

22 A.D.3d 413, 802 N.Y.S.2d 658

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

DecidedOctober 25, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 22 A.D.3d 413 (Lewis v. Worzman) 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

Lewis v. Worzman, 22 A.D.3d 413, 802 N.Y.S.2d 658 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Patricia Anne Williams, J.), entered June 30, 2004, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as time-barred, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The action was properly dismissed upon the ground that the three-year statute of limitations (CPLR 214 [5]) governing plaintiff’s claim for negligent impairment of the right to sue based on his employer’s destruction of the ladder from which he fell (see Curran v Auto Lab Serv. Ctr., 280 AD2d 636, 637 [2001]) began to run in 1991, when plaintiff learned that his employer had destroyed the ladder, not in 2002, when plaintiffs products liability action was dismissed for lack of evidence as to the ladder’s retailer or manufacturer. As the motion court held, it was the destruction of the ladder that impaired plaintiffs ability to identify the ladder’s retailer or manufacturer. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Gonzalez and Malone, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Patricia Anne Williams, J.), entered June 30, 2004, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as time-barred, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The action was properly dismissed upon the ground that the three-year statute of limitations (CPLR 214 [5]) governing plaintiff’s claim for negligent impairment of the right to sue based on his employer’s destruction of the ladder from which he fell (see Curran v Auto Lab Serv. Ctr., 280 AD2d 636, 637 [2001]) began to run in 1991, when plaintiff learned that his employer had destroyed the ladder, not in 2002, when plaintiffs products liability action was dismissed for lack of evidence as to the ladder’s retailer or manufacturer. As the motion court held, it was the destruction of the ladder that impaired plaintiffs ability to identify the ladder’s retailer or manufacturer. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Gonzalez and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.3d 413, 802 N.Y.S.2d 658, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lewis-v-worzman-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack