Macholz v. Weiss

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Macholz v. Weiss

279 A.D.2d 557, 719 N.Y.S.2d 606, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 570

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

DecidedJanuary 22, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 279 A.D.2d 557 (Macholz v. Weiss) 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

Macholz v. Weiss, 279 A.D.2d 557, 719 N.Y.S.2d 606, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 570 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for the intentional infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Hall, J.), dated February 9, 2000, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the cause of action sounding in intentional infliction of emotional distress as barred by the Statute of Limitations.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the cause of action sounding in intentional infliction of emotional distress on the ground that it is time-barred (see, CPLR 215 [3]; Langford v Roman Catholic Diocese, 271 AD2d 494; Weisman v Weisman, 108 AD2d 853). Ritter, J. P., S. Miller, Friedmann and Smith, 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 the intentional infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Hall, J.), dated February 9, 2000, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the cause of action sounding in intentional infliction of emotional distress as barred by the Statute of Limitations.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the cause of action sounding in intentional infliction of emotional distress on the ground that it is time-barred (see, CPLR 215 [3]; Langford v Roman Catholic Diocese, 271 AD2d 494; Weisman v Weisman, 108 AD2d 853). Ritter, J. P., S. Miller, Friedmann and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 A.D.2d 557, 719 N.Y.S.2d 606, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 570, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/macholz-v-weiss-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack