Mishalove v. Goldfarb

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mishalove v. Goldfarb

260 A.D.2d 219, 687 N.Y.S.2d 628, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3984

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

DecidedApril 13, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 260 A.D.2d 219 (Mishalove v. Goldfarb) 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

Mishalove v. Goldfarb, 260 A.D.2d 219, 687 N.Y.S.2d 628, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3984 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Friedman, J.), entered October 10, 1997, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint as time-barred, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants’ submissions established without contradiction that plaintiff was terminated from employment on August 10, 1990, and the complaint alleged termination in 1990. Accordingly plaintiffs action for breach of an alleged employment agreement, commenced on April 15, 1997, was barred by the six-year Statute of Limitations period for contract actions (CPLR 213 [2]). Plaintiff has not alleged any facts that might serve to toll the running of the Statute of Limitations. Leave to file an amended complaint was properly denied inasmuch as the Statute of Limitations remained as a bar to the causes of action alleged therein. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Friedman, J.), entered October 10, 1997, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint as time-barred, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants’ submissions established without contradiction that plaintiff was terminated from employment on August 10, 1990, and the complaint alleged termination in 1990. Accordingly plaintiffs action for breach of an alleged employment agreement, commenced on April 15, 1997, was barred by the six-year Statute of Limitations period for contract actions (CPLR 213 [2]). Plaintiff has not alleged any facts that might serve to toll the running of the Statute of Limitations. Leave to file an amended complaint was properly denied inasmuch as the Statute of Limitations remained as a bar to the causes of action alleged therein. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.D.2d 219, 687 N.Y.S.2d 628, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3984, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mishalove-v-goldfarb-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack