Mersten v. Ticor Title Guarantee

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mersten v. Ticor Title Guarantee

216 A.D.2d 544, 628 N.Y.S.2d 578, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7091

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

DecidedJune 26, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 216 A.D.2d 544 (Mersten v. Ticor Title Guarantee) 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

Mersten v. Ticor Title Guarantee, 216 A.D.2d 544, 628 N.Y.S.2d 578, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7091 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for negligence and/or breach of contract, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dunkin, J.), dated February 8, 1994, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion to amend the complaint to add another defendant and denied the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, the cross motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

Whether this action is based on negligence or breach of contract, it is barred by the applicable Statutes of Limitation (see, CPLR 213 [2]; 214 [4]; Green Point Sav. Bank v Dan’s Supreme Supermarket, 199 AD2d 304). Consequently, the Supreme Court erred by granting the plaintiffs’ motion to amend the complaint and by denying the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Sullivan, J. P., O’Brien, 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 negligence and/or breach of contract, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dunkin, J.), dated February 8, 1994, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion to amend the complaint to add another defendant and denied the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, the cross motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

Whether this action is based on negligence or breach of contract, it is barred by the applicable Statutes of Limitation (see, CPLR 213 [2]; 214 [4]; Green Point Sav. Bank v Dan’s Supreme Supermarket, 199 AD2d 304). Consequently, the Supreme Court erred by granting the plaintiffs’ motion to amend the complaint and by denying the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Sullivan, J. P., O’Brien, Altman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 A.D.2d 544, 628 N.Y.S.2d 578, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7091, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mersten-v-ticor-title-guarantee-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack