Polo, Ralph Lauren Corp. v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Polo, Ralph Lauren Corp. v. City of New York

193 A.D.2d 411, 597 N.Y.S.2d 74, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4617

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

DecidedMay 6, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 193 A.D.2d 411 (Polo, Ralph Lauren Corp. v. City of New York) 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

Polo, Ralph Lauren Corp. v. City of New York, 193 A.D.2d 411, 597 N.Y.S.2d 74, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4617 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen E. Freedman, J.), entered on or about March 6, 1992 and September 1, 1992, respectively, which denied plaintiffs motion to renew its prior application to strike the statute of limitations defense of third-party defendant Consolidated Edison Company of New York (Con Ed) and granted Con Ed’s cross-motion to dismiss the complaint; and which granted the motion of defendants Empire City Subway Company Ltd. and New York Telephone Co. to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The trial court properly concluded that plaintiffs direct action against the third-party defendants was time-barred because the third-party complaint was commenced after the expiration of the underlying statute of limitations (Zaveta v Portelli, 127 AD2d 760, 761). While the third-party defendants, as participants in the consolidated tort actions, had notice of the underlying occurrence, such notice is not a basis upon which to permit plaintiff to commence a direct action after the 3-year statute of limitations had run (supra). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Wallach, Kupferman and Nardelli, JJ.

Concur—Sulli-

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

—Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen E. Freedman, J.), entered on or about March 6, 1992 and September 1, 1992, respectively, which denied plaintiffs motion to renew its prior application to strike the statute of limitations defense of third-party defendant Consolidated Edison Company of New York (Con Ed) and granted Con Ed’s cross-motion to dismiss the complaint; and which granted the motion of defendants Empire City Subway Company Ltd. and New York Telephone Co. to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The trial court properly concluded that plaintiffs direct action against the third-party defendants was time-barred because the third-party complaint was commenced after the expiration of the underlying statute of limitations (Zaveta v Portelli, 127 AD2d 760, 761). While the third-party defendants, as participants in the consolidated tort actions, had notice of the underlying occurrence, such notice is not a basis upon which to permit plaintiff to commence a direct action after the 3-year statute of limitations had run (supra). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Wallach, Kupferman and Nardelli, JJ.

Concur—Sulli-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

193 A.D.2d 411, 597 N.Y.S.2d 74, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4617, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/polo-ralph-lauren-corp-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack