Liverpool v. Xerox Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Liverpool v. Xerox Corp.

242 A.D.2d 566, 664 N.Y.S.2d 729, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8726

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

DecidedSeptember 15, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 242 A.D.2d 566 (Liverpool v. Xerox Corp.) 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

Liverpool v. Xerox Corp., 242 A.D.2d 566, 664 N.Y.S.2d 729, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8726 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Belen, J.), dated August 20, 1996, as granted the motion of the defendant Xerox Corporation for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it as time-barred.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint as time-barred as to the defendant Xerox Corporation since the plaintiff’s symptoms of repetitive stress injury occurred more than three years prior to the commencement of this action (see, CPLR 214 [5]; Badillo v International Bus. Machs. Corp., 237 AD2d 553; Hayes v International Bus. Machs. Corp., 237 AD2d 254). Mangano, P. J., Copertino, Altman and Goldstein, 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 personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Belen, J.), dated August 20, 1996, as granted the motion of the defendant Xerox Corporation for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it as time-barred.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint as time-barred as to the defendant Xerox Corporation since the plaintiff’s symptoms of repetitive stress injury occurred more than three years prior to the commencement of this action (see, CPLR 214 [5]; Badillo v International Bus. Machs. Corp., 237 AD2d 553; Hayes v International Bus. Machs. Corp., 237 AD2d 254). Mangano, P. J., Copertino, Altman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 A.D.2d 566, 664 N.Y.S.2d 729, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8726, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/liverpool-v-xerox-corp-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack