Null v. Pacifica Foundation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Null v. Pacifica Foundation

60 A.D.3d 424, 873 N.Y.S.2d 489

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

DecidedMarch 5, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 60 A.D.3d 424 (Null v. Pacifica Foundation) 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

Null v. Pacifica Foundation, 60 A.D.3d 424, 873 N.Y.S.2d 489 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara R. Kapnick, J.), entered October 24, 2007, which granted the motion of defendants WBAI and Pacifica Foundation to dismiss the complaint against them as untimely, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly found that plaintiff had reason to know that the union would not be pursuing his grievance; consequently, the complaint, filed more than six months after his last unanswered communication with the union, was untimely (see White v White Rose Food, a Div. of DiGiorgio Corp., 128 F3d 110, 114 [1997]). There was no basis for tolling [425]*425the limitations period or barring its assertion, in the absence of any claim of fraudulent concealment (see Cohen v Flushing Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 68 F3d 64, 69 [1995]). Concur — Andrias, J.P., Sweeny, McGuire and DeGrasse, JJ.

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

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara R. Kapnick, J.), entered October 24, 2007, which granted the motion of defendants WBAI and Pacifica Foundation to dismiss the complaint against them as untimely, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly found that plaintiff had reason to know that the union would not be pursuing his grievance; consequently, the complaint, filed more than six months after his last unanswered communication with the union, was untimely (see White v White Rose Food, a Div. of DiGiorgio Corp., 128 F3d 110, 114 [1997]). There was no basis for tolling [425]*425the limitations period or barring its assertion, in the absence of any claim of fraudulent concealment (see Cohen v Flushing Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 68 F3d 64, 69 [1995]). Concur — Andrias, J.P., Sweeny, McGuire and DeGrasse, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 A.D.3d 424, 873 N.Y.S.2d 489, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/null-v-pacifica-foundation-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack