Montes v. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Montes v. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co.

78 A.D.2d 786, 433 N.Y.S.2d 12, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13439

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

DecidedNovember 6, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 78 A.D.2d 786 (Montes v. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co.) 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

Montes v. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., 78 A.D.2d 786, 433 N.Y.S.2d 12, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13439 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered May 4, 1979, granting plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the affirmative defense based upon the Statute of Limitations, reversed, on the law, and motion denied, with costs. In pleading an affirmative defense based upon the Statute of Limitations, it is unnecessary for defendant Manufacturers to identify the statutory sections relied upon or to specify the applicable period of limitations (Immediate v St. John’s Queens Hosp., 48 NY2d 671, 673). Therefore, its affirmative defense is properly pleaded. With regard to the merits of the defense under CPLR 3211 (subd [b]), plaintiff has exclusive knowledge as to when she discovered her husband was fraudulently withdrawing money from her accounts. Thus, it would be impossible for defendant Manufacturers to develop the merits of this defense until it has had an opportunity to examine the plaintiff. For this reason, it would be premature for this court to consider the merits of Manufacturers’ affirmative defense based upon the Statute of Limitations. (Newfield v East Riv. Sav. Bank, 263 App Div 983.) Concur — Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Ross, Yesawich and Carro, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered May 4, 1979, granting plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the affirmative defense based upon the Statute of Limitations, reversed, on the law, and motion denied, with costs. In pleading an affirmative defense based upon the Statute of Limitations, it is unnecessary for defendant Manufacturers to identify the statutory sections relied upon or to specify the applicable period of limitations (Immediate v St. John’s Queens Hosp., 48 NY2d 671, 673). Therefore, its affirmative defense is properly pleaded. With regard to the merits of the defense under CPLR 3211 (subd [b]), plaintiff has exclusive knowledge as to when she discovered her husband was fraudulently withdrawing money from her accounts. Thus, it would be impossible for defendant Manufacturers to develop the merits of this defense until it has had an opportunity to examine the plaintiff. For this reason, it would be premature for this court to consider the merits of Manufacturers’ affirmative defense based upon the Statute of Limitations. (Newfield v East Riv. Sav. Bank, 263 App Div 983.) Concur — Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Ross, Yesawich and Carro, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 A.D.2d 786, 433 N.Y.S.2d 12, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13439, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/montes-v-manufacturers-hanover-trust-co-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack