McManus v. McManus

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McManus v. McManus

269 A.D.2d 202, 702 N.Y.S.2d 298, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1298

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

DecidedFebruary 10, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 269 A.D.2d 202 (McManus v. McManus) 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

McManus v. McManus, 269 A.D.2d 202, 702 N.Y.S.2d 298, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1298 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Michael DeMarco, J.), entered on or about December 16, 1998, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiffs’ cross motion for leave to serve an amended complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

While the motion court erred in determining as a matter of law that the Estate of Janet McManus was entitled to the benefit of the exemption for owners of single family dwellings set forth in Labor Law § 240 (1), since there are issues of fact as to whether the McManus premises upon which, plaintiff was at work at the time of his accident were commercial or residential in nature (see, Bartoo v Buell, 87 NY2d 362; Cannon v Putnam, 76 NY2d 644), the court nonetheless correctly determined that plaintiffs’ proposed claims against the Estate of Janet McManus were barred by the Statute of Limitations and that they would not relate back to the date when the summons and complaint were first filed (see, CPLR 210 [b]; 214; see also, Buran v Coupal, 87 NY2d 173). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Rubin, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Michael DeMarco, J.), entered on or about December 16, 1998, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiffs’ cross motion for leave to serve an amended complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

While the motion court erred in determining as a matter of law that the Estate of Janet McManus was entitled to the benefit of the exemption for owners of single family dwellings set forth in Labor Law § 240 (1), since there are issues of fact as to whether the McManus premises upon which, plaintiff was at work at the time of his accident were commercial or residential in nature (see, Bartoo v Buell, 87 NY2d 362; Cannon v Putnam, 76 NY2d 644), the court nonetheless correctly determined that plaintiffs’ proposed claims against the Estate of Janet McManus were barred by the Statute of Limitations and that they would not relate back to the date when the summons and complaint were first filed (see, CPLR 210 [b]; 214; see also, Buran v Coupal, 87 NY2d 173). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Rubin, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 A.D.2d 202, 702 N.Y.S.2d 298, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1298, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcmanus-v-mcmanus-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack