Perez v. Wegman Companies

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Perez v. Wegman Companies

181 A.D.2d 1010, 581 N.Y.S.2d 502, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4605

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

DecidedMarch 13, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 181 A.D.2d 1010 (Perez v. Wegman Companies) 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

Perez v. Wegman Companies, 181 A.D.2d 1010, 581 N.Y.S.2d 502, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4605 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinions

— Order reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and amended complaint dismissed. Memorandum: The court erred in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss, on timeliness grounds, plaintiff’s amended complaint asserting a Labor Law § 740 cause of action. The action is time-barred by the one-year Statute of Limitations of Labor Law § 740 (4) (a). Even assuming that the timeliness of the cause of action in the amended complaint can be determined in terms of the dismissed causes of action in the original complaint, the "relation back” theory of CPLR 203 (e) does not apply. The retaliatory discharge cause of action (Labor Law § 740) in the amended complaint is based on a different theory from the breach of contract and negligence causes of action asserted in the original complaint and involves different factual allegations (see, Smith v Bessen, 161 AD2d 847, 849; see also, O’Connor v West, 124 AD2d 1050). Although plaintiff seeks redress of defendant’s termination of her employment in both her original complaint and amended complaint, the original complaint does not recite any of the essential factual allegations thereafter asserted in the amended complaint. We do not consider plaintiff’s arguments concerning CPLR 205 (a) and an estoppel theory because they are made for the first time on appeal.

All concur, except Doerr, J., who dissents and votes to affirm in the following Memorandum.

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

— Order reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and amended complaint dismissed. Memorandum: The court erred in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss, on timeliness grounds, plaintiff’s amended complaint asserting a Labor Law § 740 cause of action. The action is time-barred by the one-year Statute of Limitations of Labor Law § 740 (4) (a). Even assuming that the timeliness of the cause of action in the amended complaint can be determined in terms of the dismissed causes of action in the original complaint, the "relation back” theory of CPLR 203 (e) does not apply. The retaliatory discharge cause of action (Labor Law § 740) in the amended complaint is based on a different theory from the breach of contract and negligence causes of action asserted in the original complaint and involves different factual allegations (see, Smith v Bessen, 161 AD2d 847, 849; see also, O’Connor v West, 124 AD2d 1050). Although plaintiff seeks redress of defendant’s termination of her employment in both her original complaint and amended complaint, the original complaint does not recite any of the essential factual allegations thereafter asserted in the amended complaint. We do not consider plaintiff’s arguments concerning CPLR 205 (a) and an estoppel theory because they are made for the first time on appeal.

All concur, except Doerr, J., who dissents and votes to affirm in the following Memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 A.D.2d 1010, 581 N.Y.S.2d 502, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4605, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perez-v-wegman-companies-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack