Rolnick v. Rolnick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rolnick v. Rolnick

29 A.D.2d 987, 290 N.Y.S.2d 111, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4211

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 22, 1968·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated December 1, 1967, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment predicated upon the ground that the cause of action alleged in the complaint is barred by the Statute of Limitations. Order reversed, with $30 costs and disbursements, and summary judgment granted in favor of defendant, dismissing the complaint. In our opinion, regardless of the label applied by plaintiff, the cause of action alleged is for the traditional tort of inducing a breach of plaintiff’s employment contract. The cause of action accrued on March 16, 1962, and was governed by the three-year Statute of Limitations relating to actions to recover damages for injury to property (former Civ. Prac. Act, § 49, subd. 7). The present action, commenced on February 11, 1966, is thus barred. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur. [55 Misc 2d 243.]

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

Appeal by defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated December 1, 1967, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment predicated upon the ground that the cause of action alleged in the complaint is barred by the Statute of Limitations. Order reversed, with $30 costs and disbursements, and summary judgment granted in favor of defendant, dismissing the complaint. In our opinion, regardless of the label applied by plaintiff, the cause of action alleged is for the traditional tort of inducing a breach of plaintiff’s employment contract. The cause of action accrued on March 16, 1962, and was governed by the three-year Statute of Limitations relating to actions to recover damages for injury to property (former Civ. Prac. Act, § 49, subd. 7). The present action, commenced on February 11, 1966, is thus barred. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur. [55 Misc 2d 243.]

Rolnick v. Rolnick, 29 A.D.2d 987, 290 N.Y.S.2d 111, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4211 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

29 A.D.2d 987 (Rolnick v. Rolnick) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related