MacDonald v. Windfield Business Papers, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

MacDonald v. Windfield Business Papers, Inc.

270 A.D.2d 399, 705 N.Y.S.2d 251, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2966

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

DecidedMarch 20, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 270 A.D.2d 399 (MacDonald v. Windfield Business Papers, Inc.) 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

MacDonald v. Windfield Business Papers, Inc., 270 A.D.2d 399, 705 N.Y.S.2d 251, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2966 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Costello, J.), dated March 2, 1999, which denied his motion to dismiss the defendant’s counterclaims as barred by the Statute of Limitations.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the counterclaims are dismissed.

The defendant’s original answer did not give notice of the transactions and occurrences which are the basis of the counterclaims asserted in the amended answer. Since the defendant’s pleadings fail to satisfy the notice requirement of CPLR 203 (f), the counterclaims for defamation and tortious interference with contractual relations should have been dismissed as barred by the Statute of Limitations (see, Padua v Falow, 230 AD2d 834; Hager v Hager, 177 AD2d 401; Bernstein v Spatola, 122 AD2d 97; Shapiro v Schoninger, 122 AD2d 38; see also, CPLR 215 [3]; 214 [4]; Marine Midland Bank v Renck, 208 AD2d 688). Bracken, J. P., Joy, Goldstein and Peuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Costello, J.), dated March 2, 1999, which denied his motion to dismiss the defendant’s counterclaims as barred by the Statute of Limitations.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the counterclaims are dismissed.

The defendant’s original answer did not give notice of the transactions and occurrences which are the basis of the counterclaims asserted in the amended answer. Since the defendant’s pleadings fail to satisfy the notice requirement of CPLR 203 (f), the counterclaims for defamation and tortious interference with contractual relations should have been dismissed as barred by the Statute of Limitations (see, Padua v Falow, 230 AD2d 834; Hager v Hager, 177 AD2d 401; Bernstein v Spatola, 122 AD2d 97; Shapiro v Schoninger, 122 AD2d 38; see also, CPLR 215 [3]; 214 [4]; Marine Midland Bank v Renck, 208 AD2d 688). Bracken, J. P., Joy, Goldstein and Peuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D.2d 399, 705 N.Y.S.2d 251, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2966, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/macdonald-v-windfield-business-papers-inc-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack