Sadri Ymaj v. Empire State Realty Trust, Inc.

2024 NY Slip Op 05549

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: November 12, 2024
• Docket: Index No. 150108/22 Appeal No. 3002 Case No. 2023-01262
• Status: Published

Opinion

Sadri Ymaj v Empire State Realty Trust, Inc. (2024 NY Slip Op 05549)

Sadri Ymaj v Empire State Realty Trust, Inc.

2024 NY Slip Op 05549

Decided on November 12, 2024

Appellate Division, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered: November 12, 2024
Before: Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Pitt-Burke, Rosado, O'Neill Levy, Michael, JJ.

Index No. 150108/22 Appeal No. 3002 Case No. 2023-01262

[*1]Sadri Ymaj, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents,

v

Empire State Realty Trust, Inc., et al., Defendants, Jones Lang Lasalle Inc., et al., Defendants-Appellants.

Sobel Pevzner, LLC, Huntington (Judy R. Meisel of counsel), for Jones Lang Lasalle Inc., appellant.

Malaby & Bradley LLC, New York (Richard L. Mendelsohn of counsel), for Dever Properties, LLP and SL Green Realty Corp., appellants.

Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & DeCicco, LLP, New York (Joshua Block of counsel), for respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lisa A. Headley, J.), entered February 14, 2023, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied the motions of defendants Jones Lang La Salle Inc., Dever Properties, LLC and SL Green Realty Corp. to dismiss the complaint based on the statute of limitations, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

This Court has held that Executive Order 202.8 and its extensions tolled, rather than suspended, the statute of limitations (see Suber v Churchill Owners Corp., 228 AD3d 414, 415 [1st Dept 2024]; Allen v Thompson, 224 AD3d 565, 568 [1st Dept 2024]), and we have declined to revisit that holding(see People v Trump, 217 AD3d 609, 611 [1st Dept 2023]). Here, plaintiff was injured on September 11, 2018, and in applying a tolling rather than a suspension, the action was timely when initiated prior to April 27, 2022, an extension of 228 days. There is no dispute that the action was commenced on January 4, 2022, and thus, it is timely.

We have considered defendants' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: November 12, 2024