Richman v. Nussdorf

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Richman v. Nussdorf

203 A.D.2d 548, 612 N.Y.S.2d 933, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4327

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 25, 1994·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Shaughnessy, J.), dated February 19, 1992, which denied her motion for leave to amend the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The trial court properly denied the plaintiff’s motion to amend her complaint to allege a cause of action for negligent assault, as no such cause of action exists in this State. To the extent that the plaintiff sets forth any cognizable cause of action, it is barred by the one-year limitations period for intentional torts (see, CPLR 215). Mangano, P. J., Balletta, O’Brien, Hart and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Shaughnessy, J.), dated February 19, 1992, which denied her motion for leave to amend the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The trial court properly denied the plaintiff’s motion to amend her complaint to allege a cause of action for negligent assault, as no such cause of action exists in this State. To the extent that the plaintiff sets forth any cognizable cause of action, it is barred by the one-year limitations period for intentional torts (see, CPLR 215). Mangano, P. J., Balletta, O’Brien, Hart and Florio, JJ., concur.

Richman v. Nussdorf, 203 A.D.2d 548, 612 N.Y.S.2d 933, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4327 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

203 A.D.2d 548 (Richman v. Nussdorf) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related